Do Religion and Science Contradict? - Muslim Scientist Refutes - Part 2!
Published on
If God created everything, who created God? How did He come into existence? What do you think about evolution? Do you believe in it or do you not believe in it? Yeah it is a popular story It also becomes like the Subject of movies like you know “Matrix” God, by definition, is not physical. God is non-physical. Because the physical thing cannot be the Creator. Assalamualaikum Professor Yunus Cengel. Thank you for being with us again. This time we have some different questions that are asked by many people. the simulation theory. Could it be the case that everything we are experiencing and seeing right now is actually a simulation?
Like, we will suddenly open our eyes and see that we are in something like a dream, and we are arguing for nothing. Yeah, it is a popular story, and it also becomes the subject of movies like Matrix, And it is intriguing. People find it exciting. But I think if you think on this theory carefully, what they are describing actually is God. That is, with the ability to be able to see, manipulate and control and have full power over the entire universe, including human beings, including everything. But since, you know, we don't want to say God, let's say "Simulator", like the multiverse theory.
But I think if, let's say, there is such a being, and when they, let's say, put their heads together and describe that being, they will come up with what the major religions call God. Everything had a beginning and came into existence afterwards. So if God created everything, who created God? How did He come into existence? God by definition is not physical. God is non-physical. Because the physical thing cannot be Creator. And time is a concept of physics for non-physical things. There is no such thing as time. Therefore, for God, time is irrelevant by definition. Even, let's say in physics, Big Bang. The question, what was before the Big Bang? That question is again irrelevant.
You are looking at something before time and space. There is no physics there, and there is no time there. Therefore it is not a valid question. Physics is something of limited existence, subject to certain things, including the limitation of time and space. And the Creator is beyond that. So by definition, when God came into existence, or what did He do before that, they are irrelevant for God. As the Muslim scientist, when you look at the Qur'an and seeing the miracles of the prophets in it, how do you reconcile with scientific rules and the laws of physics, and the miracles that are happening in the Qur'an? I think the miracles, certainly, they don't fit into the laws of physics.
They clearly violate the laws of physics. And in science what we see is, the laws of physics are obeyed. But if you look at it together with a greater existence that includes God as the Creator of the universe, as the power or mastermind who created also the laws of the universe. The law maker can always make exceptions. And if God wishes to make an exception, He can. So, this is within His power. Therefore, when Moses crossed the Red Sea and the water split and stood like two water walls there, it is against the laws of physics there. But if God wants to do it, He can. It is not limited, and it is consistent within the context of religion.
With a supernatural power, God, with the ability to do whatever He wishes. But if you don't believe in God or prophets, then this question is irrelevant anyway. The most fundamental argument of scientists that are materialistic, they say that there's a reason, a cause for everything. Like, the rain is caused by clouds, clouds by vaporization, and vaporization by condensation. The whole universe is operating by laws of nature. Then, where is the Creator in all this? The connection is not necessarily causation. You know, many things are related to each other. But they don't have the causal influence there. For example, you can have the entire process there, how things are happening.
For example, how a baby is developing in the womb, how the egg is developing in a chicken, an egg. We can lay down all the stages and processes. Knowing this doesn't mean that we don't need a maker. We need continual involvement to make that thing working properly there. Physics themselves, they are passive. They're obedient, they are manipulated, the agencies subjugate them and they cannot object. They simply do what they are influenced to do there. If let's say, you have, for example, an egg. Keep it in a warm place for 21 days. A chick forms inside. That is, the white and yolk of the egg turns into a live chicken. Okay, you know how it happens. Fine. Here is the egg.
Here is the yolk and the white. Okay, make a chicken out of it. If the entire world gets together, and although they know exactly what happens in an egg, they will never be able to, let's say, put it together in the form of a chick. Why? You have to manipulate the atoms and molecules. So no one even would dare. That is, knowing how things are done doesn't alleviate the need to have a knowledgeable maker. So you have to have the ability to implement that knowledge. And everything we see, like a cell phone, a car, everything at the end needs a maker following the cause and effect relations there. Free will is one of the things that atheists object to.
Why do they have a problem with this concept? And why do they not accept it? Because if they accept, then they can no longer be materialist. If we look at the universe, there are laws. Law reflects will. Even the laws in a country. If there is a healthy democracy there, the laws reflect the general will of the people. Everybody obeys those rules. It looks like, you know, matter and energy. They obey the laws of physics. Now, that means, there is a universal will which exhibits itself as laws of physics. And implemented by the forces of physics. And in the case of human beings, I think we all feel that we can do whatever we want. If I want to raise my hand right now, I will raise it.
It is not like, oh, it is against the gravity or whatever. No, not the laws of physics. But since they limit the existence to material beings only, they claim without any evidence that the free will is the result of brain activity. Actually, there is no such thing. But in reality, I think we all feel that. I am not simply limited by my brain activity or something. If I want to do something, no matter what is going on there, I do it and I am responsible for it. I am not simply, like, a zombie, or whatever the signals say, I do that whatever, and I cannot oppose. It is not that way. And also all the countries, they have their laws. If you do a crime, then you did it willingly.
Then, they hold you responsible for that. And they don't object to that. And even, let's say, those who say it, that free will doesn't exist. Again, if their child, for example, is going to school and they are lazy. They don't do their homework. They don't say, "Oh yeah, I understand." "Your brain activity doesn't decide for you to do your homework, so you are fine." They don't do that. What do they say? "Do your homework, quick!" Otherwise, you know, you will be sorry. That is, in our living being, we exhibit our strong belief that free will is there and people are responsible. But ideologically, what they exhibit by their behaviour, they simply deny what they say they believe in.
Scientists that have materialistic worldview think that they can explain the wonders in living beings. For example, they name activities like a bee making honey as inner instinct. So, is this a right explanation or, you know, terminology, do you think? Certainly we see instinct and we see animals doing normally cannot be done by our measure. Let's say a mosquito, for example. When the eggs hatch, the mosquitoes fly away. They know what to do. They know how to fly. They know how to feed themselves, what their food is, et cetera. So, it looks like they come trained. And since typically we go to schools, we acquire knowledge, it takes a long time to master certain skills.
And animals, let's say, do sophisticated things with no apparent training. And they don't seem to be very intelligent either. But they do amazing things. Since they do amazing things, a logical conclusion is a more knowledgeable being is doing those things in them. So they say, okay, so we just say instinct. That is, somehow they acquire the knowledge out of nowhere. But if there is an instinct, it means information flow from a knowledgeable source with the ability to receive and understand that knowledge. Again, you know, it requires the mind to go beyond that knowledge.
That is, the source of that knowledge and the giver of that knowledge and the ability of that being to receive the knowledge, to act on it, and to also acquire not only knowledge, the proper skill to do things in accordance with that knowledge, which requires a high level of training there. So one view is call it instinct and saying that, "Okay, now it is done, let's move on." Or saying that, "Since they cannot do it, obviously a higher being doing that." Okay, working behind the scenes through them. But it doesn't change the fact that there is a lot of skill there. You said physical beings cannot be an agent. What is the reason for this? Why cannot physical beings be an agent?
Because physical beings, by their nature, they are made of the fundamental particles and by their nature they are passive. They just sit there. They don't do anything. They don't influence other things. They react to things. They don't use any initiatives. So they just, you know, sit there. Agencies, on the other hand, like the agency of physics, they exert influence. For example, the law of gravity, if I drop this, we know what will happen. Something will pull this to the ground. That is, it will influence. And what is pulling it? Is it another physical object? No, it is a force. If you go one step higher, we have life. We have a living being and non-living being.
When we have the agency of life, which is non-physical, it then takes over the physical body. Whether it's a plant, an animal or a bacterium or just, let's say, human being. That rules the entire body. So the agencies are influential. Therefore the non-physical agencies, they are higher level of more powerful existence compared to physical existence. Lastly, Professor Cengel. Beyond all this information, there is something I want to ask. Imagine that a young person is watching you right now, he's willing to listen. And what you said made sense to him. But he says, "My life is going well. I don't need to believe in a Creator." What would you like to say to him?
Well, I just feel sorry for them. Because they live a, I think, very limited life. Because we want meaning in our life. Let's say you don't believe in anything, and then you feel like, okay, you are born and you will die. Let's say your child died and then you think you will never see your child again. Your loved ones, et cetera. If let's say you choose a path of non-belief, you simply lead a material life, a limited life here with a lot of worries and pain, really. And you don't want to think those things and it is not a pretty life. If, let's say you choose a belief, the belief comes as a package that you don't die, and life and the soul in its nature is eternal anyway, it is not physical.
You have a life, and there is something promising you an eternal life, even more pleasurable. And something that you will get together with all your friends, all the loved ones. So if, let's say you choose this path, it is just up to the person there. There is a lot of evidence that supports that, and I think you may have a more meaningful life that way without any cost. And I think a more fulfilling life, really, more pleasurable. So you have nothing to lose and a lot to gain, not only in the Hereafter but also in this world. Professor Yunus Cengel, thank you for your answers. We learned a lot from you. And thank you for your time and being with us. Oh, thank you. My pleasure to be here.
Like, we will suddenly open our eyes and see that we are in something like a dream, and we are arguing for nothing. Yeah, it is a popular story, and it also becomes the subject of movies like Matrix, And it is intriguing. People find it exciting. But I think if you think on this theory carefully, what they are describing actually is God. That is, with the ability to be able to see, manipulate and control and have full power over the entire universe, including human beings, including everything. But since, you know, we don't want to say God, let's say "Simulator", like the multiverse theory.
But I think if, let's say, there is such a being, and when they, let's say, put their heads together and describe that being, they will come up with what the major religions call God. Everything had a beginning and came into existence afterwards. So if God created everything, who created God? How did He come into existence? God by definition is not physical. God is non-physical. Because the physical thing cannot be Creator. And time is a concept of physics for non-physical things. There is no such thing as time. Therefore, for God, time is irrelevant by definition. Even, let's say in physics, Big Bang. The question, what was before the Big Bang? That question is again irrelevant.
You are looking at something before time and space. There is no physics there, and there is no time there. Therefore it is not a valid question. Physics is something of limited existence, subject to certain things, including the limitation of time and space. And the Creator is beyond that. So by definition, when God came into existence, or what did He do before that, they are irrelevant for God. As the Muslim scientist, when you look at the Qur'an and seeing the miracles of the prophets in it, how do you reconcile with scientific rules and the laws of physics, and the miracles that are happening in the Qur'an? I think the miracles, certainly, they don't fit into the laws of physics.
They clearly violate the laws of physics. And in science what we see is, the laws of physics are obeyed. But if you look at it together with a greater existence that includes God as the Creator of the universe, as the power or mastermind who created also the laws of the universe. The law maker can always make exceptions. And if God wishes to make an exception, He can. So, this is within His power. Therefore, when Moses crossed the Red Sea and the water split and stood like two water walls there, it is against the laws of physics there. But if God wants to do it, He can. It is not limited, and it is consistent within the context of religion.
With a supernatural power, God, with the ability to do whatever He wishes. But if you don't believe in God or prophets, then this question is irrelevant anyway. The most fundamental argument of scientists that are materialistic, they say that there's a reason, a cause for everything. Like, the rain is caused by clouds, clouds by vaporization, and vaporization by condensation. The whole universe is operating by laws of nature. Then, where is the Creator in all this? The connection is not necessarily causation. You know, many things are related to each other. But they don't have the causal influence there. For example, you can have the entire process there, how things are happening.
For example, how a baby is developing in the womb, how the egg is developing in a chicken, an egg. We can lay down all the stages and processes. Knowing this doesn't mean that we don't need a maker. We need continual involvement to make that thing working properly there. Physics themselves, they are passive. They're obedient, they are manipulated, the agencies subjugate them and they cannot object. They simply do what they are influenced to do there. If let's say, you have, for example, an egg. Keep it in a warm place for 21 days. A chick forms inside. That is, the white and yolk of the egg turns into a live chicken. Okay, you know how it happens. Fine. Here is the egg.
Here is the yolk and the white. Okay, make a chicken out of it. If the entire world gets together, and although they know exactly what happens in an egg, they will never be able to, let's say, put it together in the form of a chick. Why? You have to manipulate the atoms and molecules. So no one even would dare. That is, knowing how things are done doesn't alleviate the need to have a knowledgeable maker. So you have to have the ability to implement that knowledge. And everything we see, like a cell phone, a car, everything at the end needs a maker following the cause and effect relations there. Free will is one of the things that atheists object to.
Why do they have a problem with this concept? And why do they not accept it? Because if they accept, then they can no longer be materialist. If we look at the universe, there are laws. Law reflects will. Even the laws in a country. If there is a healthy democracy there, the laws reflect the general will of the people. Everybody obeys those rules. It looks like, you know, matter and energy. They obey the laws of physics. Now, that means, there is a universal will which exhibits itself as laws of physics. And implemented by the forces of physics. And in the case of human beings, I think we all feel that we can do whatever we want. If I want to raise my hand right now, I will raise it.
It is not like, oh, it is against the gravity or whatever. No, not the laws of physics. But since they limit the existence to material beings only, they claim without any evidence that the free will is the result of brain activity. Actually, there is no such thing. But in reality, I think we all feel that. I am not simply limited by my brain activity or something. If I want to do something, no matter what is going on there, I do it and I am responsible for it. I am not simply, like, a zombie, or whatever the signals say, I do that whatever, and I cannot oppose. It is not that way. And also all the countries, they have their laws. If you do a crime, then you did it willingly.
Then, they hold you responsible for that. And they don't object to that. And even, let's say, those who say it, that free will doesn't exist. Again, if their child, for example, is going to school and they are lazy. They don't do their homework. They don't say, "Oh yeah, I understand." "Your brain activity doesn't decide for you to do your homework, so you are fine." They don't do that. What do they say? "Do your homework, quick!" Otherwise, you know, you will be sorry. That is, in our living being, we exhibit our strong belief that free will is there and people are responsible. But ideologically, what they exhibit by their behaviour, they simply deny what they say they believe in.
Scientists that have materialistic worldview think that they can explain the wonders in living beings. For example, they name activities like a bee making honey as inner instinct. So, is this a right explanation or, you know, terminology, do you think? Certainly we see instinct and we see animals doing normally cannot be done by our measure. Let's say a mosquito, for example. When the eggs hatch, the mosquitoes fly away. They know what to do. They know how to fly. They know how to feed themselves, what their food is, et cetera. So, it looks like they come trained. And since typically we go to schools, we acquire knowledge, it takes a long time to master certain skills.
And animals, let's say, do sophisticated things with no apparent training. And they don't seem to be very intelligent either. But they do amazing things. Since they do amazing things, a logical conclusion is a more knowledgeable being is doing those things in them. So they say, okay, so we just say instinct. That is, somehow they acquire the knowledge out of nowhere. But if there is an instinct, it means information flow from a knowledgeable source with the ability to receive and understand that knowledge. Again, you know, it requires the mind to go beyond that knowledge.
That is, the source of that knowledge and the giver of that knowledge and the ability of that being to receive the knowledge, to act on it, and to also acquire not only knowledge, the proper skill to do things in accordance with that knowledge, which requires a high level of training there. So one view is call it instinct and saying that, "Okay, now it is done, let's move on." Or saying that, "Since they cannot do it, obviously a higher being doing that." Okay, working behind the scenes through them. But it doesn't change the fact that there is a lot of skill there. You said physical beings cannot be an agent. What is the reason for this? Why cannot physical beings be an agent?
Because physical beings, by their nature, they are made of the fundamental particles and by their nature they are passive. They just sit there. They don't do anything. They don't influence other things. They react to things. They don't use any initiatives. So they just, you know, sit there. Agencies, on the other hand, like the agency of physics, they exert influence. For example, the law of gravity, if I drop this, we know what will happen. Something will pull this to the ground. That is, it will influence. And what is pulling it? Is it another physical object? No, it is a force. If you go one step higher, we have life. We have a living being and non-living being.
When we have the agency of life, which is non-physical, it then takes over the physical body. Whether it's a plant, an animal or a bacterium or just, let's say, human being. That rules the entire body. So the agencies are influential. Therefore the non-physical agencies, they are higher level of more powerful existence compared to physical existence. Lastly, Professor Cengel. Beyond all this information, there is something I want to ask. Imagine that a young person is watching you right now, he's willing to listen. And what you said made sense to him. But he says, "My life is going well. I don't need to believe in a Creator." What would you like to say to him?
Well, I just feel sorry for them. Because they live a, I think, very limited life. Because we want meaning in our life. Let's say you don't believe in anything, and then you feel like, okay, you are born and you will die. Let's say your child died and then you think you will never see your child again. Your loved ones, et cetera. If let's say you choose a path of non-belief, you simply lead a material life, a limited life here with a lot of worries and pain, really. And you don't want to think those things and it is not a pretty life. If, let's say you choose a belief, the belief comes as a package that you don't die, and life and the soul in its nature is eternal anyway, it is not physical.
You have a life, and there is something promising you an eternal life, even more pleasurable. And something that you will get together with all your friends, all the loved ones. So if, let's say you choose this path, it is just up to the person there. There is a lot of evidence that supports that, and I think you may have a more meaningful life that way without any cost. And I think a more fulfilling life, really, more pleasurable. So you have nothing to lose and a lot to gain, not only in the Hereafter but also in this world. Professor Yunus Cengel, thank you for your answers. We learned a lot from you. And thank you for your time and being with us. Oh, thank you. My pleasure to be here.