Hardest Atheism Questions Answered in 1 Minute! "Biology Debunks Atheism"
Published on
Couldn't this universe have come into being by chance, out of billions of possibilities? If God created everything, how did God come into existence? Doesn't He need a Creator too? What do you say to a materialist who says that "I don't believe what I don't see"? If the science and Quran contradict each other, which one you choose? Subboor Ahmad, welcome to our cross-examination concept. We're gonna be asking you questions regarding atheism. You have 60 seconds for every question. Shall we begin? Yeah. What do you say to an atheist who says, "I don't need a Creator"? I'd simply say it doesn't matter whether you think you need a Creator or not.
The question is, "Is there a Creator?" And if there is a Creator, then there is going to be benefits in believing in the Creator, and there is going to be consequences for not believing in the Creator. So the real question is not whether you think you want to believe in a Creator or you think you need God or you don't, The real question is, "Is there a God?" And for that the answer is, "Absolutely." Then how would you prove God to an atheist? We have many different ways of showing that it's rational to believe in God. My personal favorite is the biological argument. Take something as simple as the human brain. The human brain is vastly more complex than anything a human being has ever made.
The human brain has certain components that work together in synergy. And when a part of the brain is damaged, the other parts take up the job. And the processing that the human brain does is unmatched. Have you ever looked around using your mobile phone, you're recording something? After some time your mobile will say "Memory full." Has that ever happened to you as a human being though? Have you ever seen different things, you look at a sunset, you go home and you look at your children, do you ever get a flashing sign saying "Memory Full"? "We cannot record anymore." No, you remember what happened when you were a child. You remember your high school.
You can go back right now 20 years, recall a memory, and even recall details about that memory. Recall the emotions of that memory. Now all of this, we're supposed to believe, is the product of a blind, naturalistic, mechanistic process? Without intentionality? That's ludicrous. Now, there is three ways that somebody can explain biological design. Biological design is either the result of chance, or it's necessity, it's just meant to be that way. Or, there is a God, there is a designer. Now, if you're gonna say it's chance, then we might as well not have a conversation. Because everything can be chance. Anything can be due to chance.
I could simply gamble all of my life's savings and put them in the lottery. And I could say, "Oh, there is a chance." But human beings don't act like that. Chance is not something that can make something as sophisticated as the human brain, or other things that we point out in terms of biological design. Necessity. Well, what's necessary about us being the way that we are? We could have been otherwise. We could've not existed. So, that's a non-starter. So if we logically break it down, the only logical possibility is that there is a designer behind the design. And this is completely natural and intuitive to believe.
But the Darwinists want us to believe that behind design, there is an illusion of design. And that is a much harder proposition to swallow. Couldn't this universe have come into being by chance, out of billions of possibilities? I would say if we were to entertain such a ridiculous possibility, then we could claim the same about anything else. If you see a hundred dollars enter your bank account you could say somebody in Mexico was accidentally putting in their details and they accidentally put in my details. You could claim anything about anything. There would be no reason to do science.
Because you would study a natural phenomenon, and rather than giving the most plausible explanation, you could take any number of infinite ad hoc explanations and say, "It could've been this, it could've been that." However, we as human beings don't operate like that. If you know there is a 1% chance that a drink I'm about to give you has poison, and 99% chance you'll be fine, you're going to refuse that drink. Probabilities help us make decisions. We don't just say to ourselves, "Well, chances are I'll be okay. So I'll be fine with that." Now if I told you there's 99% poison in there that could kill you, and 1% that you'll be fine, you definitely wouldn't take that.
So, we use probabilities to come up with reasons for our behavior. Conclusions for how we should be living. So when it comes to God, why do we throw those probabilities out? Why do we go with the most absurd ideas? Well, did you know that this is highly improbable but there is a chance? The inconsistency is explained by the fact that people don't want to believe in God. Because whoever's consistent, they would never entertain the idea that this universe, with all its vast complexity, can be the result of blind chance. What do you say to those who say that as science develops, it eliminates belief and explains everything?
As the torchlight of science illuminates the dark room, the room for theism dissipates. So as we discover more and more, there is less for God to explain. That's the general idea. This can be challenged by a simple verse of the Quran. Allah mentions in the Quran, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Do you not see the birds up in the sky? And those birds, they are folding their wings and bringing them in. And none holds them up except Allah." So there is two things going on in this verse. The first is that Allah acknowledges there is something mechanical going on. Because Allah points to the wings. But then Allah says, "None holds them up except Allah." So here we have two types of explanation.
We have a mechanical explanation, a "How?" explanation, and we have a "Why?" explanation, or an agency explanation. These are two complementary types of explanation. The atheist wants us to believe that the mechanical challenges the agency. We would say the mechanical and the agency go hand in hand. So, as science develops, as we understand photosynthesis, as we understand how the universe expands and changes, as we understand the mechanisms; it doesn't mean that the agency is removed. If anything, the existence of the agency is reinforced by the discovery of the mechanism. So, the converse is true to what they claim. As science progresses, the explanatory power of theism increases.
But we have laws of physics in the universe and things are happening in order. Do we need a God to explain the universe? I would say that's a false dichotomy. Because the atheist is pitting the laws of the universe against God. But that's not sensible. The real question is, since there are laws that both atheists and theists agree on, what is the best explanation of those laws? Is it that those laws came about by naturalism, by nothing? By everything being broken down to natural processes and materials? Or is it the case that behind these laws and patterns, there is an intelligence? There is something superior to matter? And the latter makes a lot more sense than the former.
Some people say the Creator may have set the laws, and might have left. What do you say to those people? I would say, imagine a factory where somebody hires a thousand people, puts rules in place, puts regulations in place, says goodbye to everyone for 10,000 years. Would that place last a month, let alone 10,000 years? What would be the most natural thing to do if you created something? Would it be to just ignore it, as if it doesn't exist? Or would it be to actively participate, actively support, actively make it function?
The idea of there being a God who creates things and moves away is not the idea of a God who is wise, and all-knowing, and all-powerful, and all-caring, and loving, and merciful. That's a negligent God. And that's not a God that theism posits. What do you say to a materialist who says that I don't believe what I don't see? The answer is pretty simple. We don't see God but we see God's creation. In many domains of human knowledge, we don't see the cause but we see the effect. A detective may see footsteps and infers from the footsteps that there was a human being here. If you walk past a beach, and you see a writing, and it says "I love you," you'd think somebody took a stick and wrote that.
You didn't see it happen, but you infer. We can see biological design. We can see the night sky. We can see design all around us. We can see the thirst human beings have for spirituality. We can see the morals that we have. All of these things together are best explained by a Creator. And us as human beings, if we were to, within our lifetimes, apply the rule that whatever you see, you believe and whatever you don't see, you don't believe; we wouldn't believe in historical events. Because we haven't seen them, those are testimonial. We wouldn't believe in morals, because we can't see them. We wouldn't believe in love, and hope, and fear because we can't see those things.
So, whichever way you look at it, it doesn't make sense to claim that what you can't see, you can't believe in. As long as we can see the effect, we should believe in the cause. What do you say to those who accept multiverse? I would say accepting multiverse would not undermine the existence of God. The way that some people use multiverse is as if they could use it as a substitute for God. So we have this universe which is designed, which has clear order, and the way that this universe is explained by some is that there are billions and billions of universes and we just happen to be in the universe that's designed, and all the other universes are not designed.
That contention, even if we're to take it seriously, it wouldn't undermine God's existence. Because all of those universes which are finite, which are dependent, would still need to be explained by one who is not dependent, and who is not limited. Some say we have evolution, so we don't need God. What do you say to those people? I would say Darwin himself would be quite surprised if he heard someone say that. Because he didn't think that there was an incoherency in believing in theism and believing in his theory. In fact, he was somebody who believed in God at the time that he published his theory. There is ample evidence that naturalism is insufficient to explain what we see in the world.
Now, atheists may claim that we have a biological mechanism in the form of natural selection, and that renders the God hypothesis according to them, useless; when the converse is true. Not only is it that this naturalistic mechanism is insufficient to explain the scientific evidence, but even if it was not insufficient there would still be an agency required to best explain biological design. So God as a logical conclusion is inescapable. If God created everything, how did God come into existence? Doesn't He need a Creator too? I would say this is a misplaced question. Everything that has a beginning needs a cause. God does not have a beginning, therefore God doesn't need a cause.
I wouldn't say, "Everything has been created," and then say, "But God doesn't have a Creator." I would say everything that begins to exist has a Creator, and God did not begin to exist. God is the first and the last. No beginning, no end. And the only one that has been there for eternity. So that question only applies to finite, limited beings. Not to God. How can you prove that God doesn't have a beginning and He's eternal? If God had a beginning, that would not be God. That would be a limited being. If everything around us had a beginning, then that beginning has to be explained by something else. And if that thing had a beginning, it has to be explained by something else.
And then we would be facing an infinite regress of things depending on other things which are dependent. So if all the things around us are dependent, and they are dependent on other things which are dependent and those are dependent on other things which are dependent, you have an infinite regress. And nothing would ever be created. But we exist. We are here. So that means this chain must logically stop. And it stops at one independent Creator. And that independent Creator does not depend on anything else. Because if that Creator had a beginning, or it depended on something else, the infinite regress would start again and we would never exist. So the buck has to stop somewhere, logically.
So God is the first cause, the ultimate cause, and the explanation of all of the effects. Can there be more than one God? Can you prove oneness of God? If we assume, for the sake of argument, that there are two Gods or three Gods, the first obvious problem is that none of those Gods can be all-powerful. Because if one says "Make it rain," the other says "I don't want to make it rain," third one says "I want to make it snow." They limit each other. And if they limit each other, none of them can be God. Now, Imam Tahawi in his book also goes over a similar sort of example. He mentions you cannot have a case of two wills which are all-powerful contradicting each other.
So, for us to exist, for the universe to exist, we know that there has to be a Creator. But if you posit two creators, none of them is God, none of them is all-powerful. None of them has absolute will. So the only logical conclusion is there is one absolute God, one absolute will, one absolute Creator. What if there is more than one God but they agree upon everything? In that case, they agree to work together practically. But from a potential perspective, if they were to disagree, they would still not be all-powerful. So, from a logical point of view, by getting all the Gods to agree, you haven't solved the problem of the incoherency of there being two absolute, all-powerful beings.
You've tried to put it under the rug, but it's come out like a shining pink elephant. It's a contradiction which cannot be ignored. If the science and Quran contradict each other, which one you choose? I would say that's a false dichotomy. The reason why is because the Quran is God's word and the world is God's word. Allah has given us the tools to try and understand this world. And one of the best tools that we have is science. If there is a contradiction between something in the Quran and something that we've come across in our real-world observation or scientific conclusion, it could be that that scientific understanding of the phenomenon that we have is wrong.
We simply got the science wrong. And many times in the past, we have got the science wrong. But there is also times when science is telling you something is not possible because they have an assumption of naturalism. And the Quran is telling you it is possible. Science today would tell you it is not possible to have a child born without a father, without sperm. The Quran mentions that Jesus was born without a father. So there is a clear contradiction. I would go with the Quran over scientific consensus that you cannot have a child born without a father because ultimately, who sent the law that you're gonna have a child with a father and a mother? That is Allah.
And Allah made the law and Allah can suspend the law. So ultimately, the greatest authority is the word of Allah, and science is a beautiful tool to try and understand the world. But it has limitations. Can we not find the truth and what is moral without religion? Why do we need religion? We can find out many things without religion. We can find out what is inside a cell. We can find out which parts of the brain control movement and thinking. These are things we can discover without God.
But deep questions, "What is the purpose of life?" "What's the best way to live?" "How do we deal with the problem of evil?" "How do we deal with suffering?" Human beings have tried to find the answers in each other, by having discussions. We've never really come up to anything meaningful. And these deep, profound questions can only be answered by the one who created us. Just like a manufacturer is the best person to tell you how to run a product, the best one to explain the purpose of life and the happiest way to live is the one who created us. So, it sounds cool to say "We don't need religion, we can work things out." But history tells us the opposite.
History tells us that when human beings have tried to come up with their own philosophies, it usually led to unmitigated disasters. So the fact is we need God to answer those deep questions, and those questions cannot be answered by men. Why did God create me without asking me? This question is usually asked from the perspective of consent being an obligation. So, if somebody decides to take my coat without my permission, I have the right to say "What gave you the right to take my coat?" If somebody comes into my house without my permission, I would say "What gave you the right to come into my property without my permission?" So we are used to consent.
However, God doesn't need anybody's consent. God created us. We are slaves of God, we are servants of God, we are creations of God. And God says we will be questioned. He will not be questioned. So the consent paradigm applies between human beings. But doesn't apply to the one who created all human beings. Brother Subboor, thank you for these convincing answers. Next time, we will come with harder questions Inshallah. Inshallah.
The question is, "Is there a Creator?" And if there is a Creator, then there is going to be benefits in believing in the Creator, and there is going to be consequences for not believing in the Creator. So the real question is not whether you think you want to believe in a Creator or you think you need God or you don't, The real question is, "Is there a God?" And for that the answer is, "Absolutely." Then how would you prove God to an atheist? We have many different ways of showing that it's rational to believe in God. My personal favorite is the biological argument. Take something as simple as the human brain. The human brain is vastly more complex than anything a human being has ever made.
The human brain has certain components that work together in synergy. And when a part of the brain is damaged, the other parts take up the job. And the processing that the human brain does is unmatched. Have you ever looked around using your mobile phone, you're recording something? After some time your mobile will say "Memory full." Has that ever happened to you as a human being though? Have you ever seen different things, you look at a sunset, you go home and you look at your children, do you ever get a flashing sign saying "Memory Full"? "We cannot record anymore." No, you remember what happened when you were a child. You remember your high school.
You can go back right now 20 years, recall a memory, and even recall details about that memory. Recall the emotions of that memory. Now all of this, we're supposed to believe, is the product of a blind, naturalistic, mechanistic process? Without intentionality? That's ludicrous. Now, there is three ways that somebody can explain biological design. Biological design is either the result of chance, or it's necessity, it's just meant to be that way. Or, there is a God, there is a designer. Now, if you're gonna say it's chance, then we might as well not have a conversation. Because everything can be chance. Anything can be due to chance.
I could simply gamble all of my life's savings and put them in the lottery. And I could say, "Oh, there is a chance." But human beings don't act like that. Chance is not something that can make something as sophisticated as the human brain, or other things that we point out in terms of biological design. Necessity. Well, what's necessary about us being the way that we are? We could have been otherwise. We could've not existed. So, that's a non-starter. So if we logically break it down, the only logical possibility is that there is a designer behind the design. And this is completely natural and intuitive to believe.
But the Darwinists want us to believe that behind design, there is an illusion of design. And that is a much harder proposition to swallow. Couldn't this universe have come into being by chance, out of billions of possibilities? I would say if we were to entertain such a ridiculous possibility, then we could claim the same about anything else. If you see a hundred dollars enter your bank account you could say somebody in Mexico was accidentally putting in their details and they accidentally put in my details. You could claim anything about anything. There would be no reason to do science.
Because you would study a natural phenomenon, and rather than giving the most plausible explanation, you could take any number of infinite ad hoc explanations and say, "It could've been this, it could've been that." However, we as human beings don't operate like that. If you know there is a 1% chance that a drink I'm about to give you has poison, and 99% chance you'll be fine, you're going to refuse that drink. Probabilities help us make decisions. We don't just say to ourselves, "Well, chances are I'll be okay. So I'll be fine with that." Now if I told you there's 99% poison in there that could kill you, and 1% that you'll be fine, you definitely wouldn't take that.
So, we use probabilities to come up with reasons for our behavior. Conclusions for how we should be living. So when it comes to God, why do we throw those probabilities out? Why do we go with the most absurd ideas? Well, did you know that this is highly improbable but there is a chance? The inconsistency is explained by the fact that people don't want to believe in God. Because whoever's consistent, they would never entertain the idea that this universe, with all its vast complexity, can be the result of blind chance. What do you say to those who say that as science develops, it eliminates belief and explains everything?
As the torchlight of science illuminates the dark room, the room for theism dissipates. So as we discover more and more, there is less for God to explain. That's the general idea. This can be challenged by a simple verse of the Quran. Allah mentions in the Quran, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Do you not see the birds up in the sky? And those birds, they are folding their wings and bringing them in. And none holds them up except Allah." So there is two things going on in this verse. The first is that Allah acknowledges there is something mechanical going on. Because Allah points to the wings. But then Allah says, "None holds them up except Allah." So here we have two types of explanation.
We have a mechanical explanation, a "How?" explanation, and we have a "Why?" explanation, or an agency explanation. These are two complementary types of explanation. The atheist wants us to believe that the mechanical challenges the agency. We would say the mechanical and the agency go hand in hand. So, as science develops, as we understand photosynthesis, as we understand how the universe expands and changes, as we understand the mechanisms; it doesn't mean that the agency is removed. If anything, the existence of the agency is reinforced by the discovery of the mechanism. So, the converse is true to what they claim. As science progresses, the explanatory power of theism increases.
But we have laws of physics in the universe and things are happening in order. Do we need a God to explain the universe? I would say that's a false dichotomy. Because the atheist is pitting the laws of the universe against God. But that's not sensible. The real question is, since there are laws that both atheists and theists agree on, what is the best explanation of those laws? Is it that those laws came about by naturalism, by nothing? By everything being broken down to natural processes and materials? Or is it the case that behind these laws and patterns, there is an intelligence? There is something superior to matter? And the latter makes a lot more sense than the former.
Some people say the Creator may have set the laws, and might have left. What do you say to those people? I would say, imagine a factory where somebody hires a thousand people, puts rules in place, puts regulations in place, says goodbye to everyone for 10,000 years. Would that place last a month, let alone 10,000 years? What would be the most natural thing to do if you created something? Would it be to just ignore it, as if it doesn't exist? Or would it be to actively participate, actively support, actively make it function?
The idea of there being a God who creates things and moves away is not the idea of a God who is wise, and all-knowing, and all-powerful, and all-caring, and loving, and merciful. That's a negligent God. And that's not a God that theism posits. What do you say to a materialist who says that I don't believe what I don't see? The answer is pretty simple. We don't see God but we see God's creation. In many domains of human knowledge, we don't see the cause but we see the effect. A detective may see footsteps and infers from the footsteps that there was a human being here. If you walk past a beach, and you see a writing, and it says "I love you," you'd think somebody took a stick and wrote that.
You didn't see it happen, but you infer. We can see biological design. We can see the night sky. We can see design all around us. We can see the thirst human beings have for spirituality. We can see the morals that we have. All of these things together are best explained by a Creator. And us as human beings, if we were to, within our lifetimes, apply the rule that whatever you see, you believe and whatever you don't see, you don't believe; we wouldn't believe in historical events. Because we haven't seen them, those are testimonial. We wouldn't believe in morals, because we can't see them. We wouldn't believe in love, and hope, and fear because we can't see those things.
So, whichever way you look at it, it doesn't make sense to claim that what you can't see, you can't believe in. As long as we can see the effect, we should believe in the cause. What do you say to those who accept multiverse? I would say accepting multiverse would not undermine the existence of God. The way that some people use multiverse is as if they could use it as a substitute for God. So we have this universe which is designed, which has clear order, and the way that this universe is explained by some is that there are billions and billions of universes and we just happen to be in the universe that's designed, and all the other universes are not designed.
That contention, even if we're to take it seriously, it wouldn't undermine God's existence. Because all of those universes which are finite, which are dependent, would still need to be explained by one who is not dependent, and who is not limited. Some say we have evolution, so we don't need God. What do you say to those people? I would say Darwin himself would be quite surprised if he heard someone say that. Because he didn't think that there was an incoherency in believing in theism and believing in his theory. In fact, he was somebody who believed in God at the time that he published his theory. There is ample evidence that naturalism is insufficient to explain what we see in the world.
Now, atheists may claim that we have a biological mechanism in the form of natural selection, and that renders the God hypothesis according to them, useless; when the converse is true. Not only is it that this naturalistic mechanism is insufficient to explain the scientific evidence, but even if it was not insufficient there would still be an agency required to best explain biological design. So God as a logical conclusion is inescapable. If God created everything, how did God come into existence? Doesn't He need a Creator too? I would say this is a misplaced question. Everything that has a beginning needs a cause. God does not have a beginning, therefore God doesn't need a cause.
I wouldn't say, "Everything has been created," and then say, "But God doesn't have a Creator." I would say everything that begins to exist has a Creator, and God did not begin to exist. God is the first and the last. No beginning, no end. And the only one that has been there for eternity. So that question only applies to finite, limited beings. Not to God. How can you prove that God doesn't have a beginning and He's eternal? If God had a beginning, that would not be God. That would be a limited being. If everything around us had a beginning, then that beginning has to be explained by something else. And if that thing had a beginning, it has to be explained by something else.
And then we would be facing an infinite regress of things depending on other things which are dependent. So if all the things around us are dependent, and they are dependent on other things which are dependent and those are dependent on other things which are dependent, you have an infinite regress. And nothing would ever be created. But we exist. We are here. So that means this chain must logically stop. And it stops at one independent Creator. And that independent Creator does not depend on anything else. Because if that Creator had a beginning, or it depended on something else, the infinite regress would start again and we would never exist. So the buck has to stop somewhere, logically.
So God is the first cause, the ultimate cause, and the explanation of all of the effects. Can there be more than one God? Can you prove oneness of God? If we assume, for the sake of argument, that there are two Gods or three Gods, the first obvious problem is that none of those Gods can be all-powerful. Because if one says "Make it rain," the other says "I don't want to make it rain," third one says "I want to make it snow." They limit each other. And if they limit each other, none of them can be God. Now, Imam Tahawi in his book also goes over a similar sort of example. He mentions you cannot have a case of two wills which are all-powerful contradicting each other.
So, for us to exist, for the universe to exist, we know that there has to be a Creator. But if you posit two creators, none of them is God, none of them is all-powerful. None of them has absolute will. So the only logical conclusion is there is one absolute God, one absolute will, one absolute Creator. What if there is more than one God but they agree upon everything? In that case, they agree to work together practically. But from a potential perspective, if they were to disagree, they would still not be all-powerful. So, from a logical point of view, by getting all the Gods to agree, you haven't solved the problem of the incoherency of there being two absolute, all-powerful beings.
You've tried to put it under the rug, but it's come out like a shining pink elephant. It's a contradiction which cannot be ignored. If the science and Quran contradict each other, which one you choose? I would say that's a false dichotomy. The reason why is because the Quran is God's word and the world is God's word. Allah has given us the tools to try and understand this world. And one of the best tools that we have is science. If there is a contradiction between something in the Quran and something that we've come across in our real-world observation or scientific conclusion, it could be that that scientific understanding of the phenomenon that we have is wrong.
We simply got the science wrong. And many times in the past, we have got the science wrong. But there is also times when science is telling you something is not possible because they have an assumption of naturalism. And the Quran is telling you it is possible. Science today would tell you it is not possible to have a child born without a father, without sperm. The Quran mentions that Jesus was born without a father. So there is a clear contradiction. I would go with the Quran over scientific consensus that you cannot have a child born without a father because ultimately, who sent the law that you're gonna have a child with a father and a mother? That is Allah.
And Allah made the law and Allah can suspend the law. So ultimately, the greatest authority is the word of Allah, and science is a beautiful tool to try and understand the world. But it has limitations. Can we not find the truth and what is moral without religion? Why do we need religion? We can find out many things without religion. We can find out what is inside a cell. We can find out which parts of the brain control movement and thinking. These are things we can discover without God.
But deep questions, "What is the purpose of life?" "What's the best way to live?" "How do we deal with the problem of evil?" "How do we deal with suffering?" Human beings have tried to find the answers in each other, by having discussions. We've never really come up to anything meaningful. And these deep, profound questions can only be answered by the one who created us. Just like a manufacturer is the best person to tell you how to run a product, the best one to explain the purpose of life and the happiest way to live is the one who created us. So, it sounds cool to say "We don't need religion, we can work things out." But history tells us the opposite.
History tells us that when human beings have tried to come up with their own philosophies, it usually led to unmitigated disasters. So the fact is we need God to answer those deep questions, and those questions cannot be answered by men. Why did God create me without asking me? This question is usually asked from the perspective of consent being an obligation. So, if somebody decides to take my coat without my permission, I have the right to say "What gave you the right to take my coat?" If somebody comes into my house without my permission, I would say "What gave you the right to come into my property without my permission?" So we are used to consent.
However, God doesn't need anybody's consent. God created us. We are slaves of God, we are servants of God, we are creations of God. And God says we will be questioned. He will not be questioned. So the consent paradigm applies between human beings. But doesn't apply to the one who created all human beings. Brother Subboor, thank you for these convincing answers. Next time, we will come with harder questions Inshallah. Inshallah.