# "Too Late For Proof!" - Agnostic Vs Muslim

- Language: en
- Published: 2026-08-26
- Canonical: https://blog.towardseternity.com/en/blog/too-late-for-proof-agnostic-vs-muslim
- Source video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbVg3Tt1Ync
- Channel: Towards Eternity

This is the cleaned transcript of the source video. The speech is unaltered.

---

- I'm a non-believer, an atheist, so to speak. And I definitely read the book (Quran). So, I wasn't an unconscious Muslim. It's too late for evidence! + Where there's information, the unknown disappears. - Is God a solution at this point? + If not the solution, then what it is? - When you explain the universe with something else, you can also find a path. If I prefer a scientific perspective this is still a theory for me. + Can you show me the gravity as a material? - We name this moving thing as a "law". +Okay, but you're saying that the name you gave is doing the work. Wouldn't it make more sense for you to accept someone?

+ Then it shouldn't be a problem to broadcast it on YouTube - No, not at all. + What is your faith? - I'm a non-believer, an atheist, so to speak. It could even be said that I'm an agnostic. + Were you a Muslim before? - I used to be a Muslim. I used to go to Friday prayers for most of the time. I think I can give 50% impact to social media. Actually, it happened through humor. + So in what case would your opinion change and you believe in a creator again and return to Islam? - I haven't asked myself that question for a long time. Because my current view has settled in. I'm not thinking "If God appears, I'll believe in Him".

At this stage, if I ever feel like I have found the reason for a creator, I believe it will be a very internal change. It's too late for evidence. + Why? - Because it all happened 1500 years ago. + But evidence is still evidence. - I need some very hard evidence, but other than that, the logic and perspective doesn't suit me. Meanwhile, I definitely read the book (Quran). So, I wasn't an unconscious Muslim. + What if I could offer some very reasonable evidences right now? Would you think "I'll change my mind again"? - Why not? + First of all, I will say this: because agnosticism is about the unknown, in order to be unknown, there must be no information.

But where there's information, the unknown disappears. For example, if there was no evidence, no trace, no proof, you could say it's unknown, but when we look at the universe, we are in a segregation which we make a deduction true and we can't deny. Like what? Properties don't hang in the air, let's say we're at the seaside and we see the sun shining on the sea. Here we will either say: "even if we don't see it, we'll accept a sun above us" or we could say: "inside each of the tiny pieces, particles, I have to accept the existence of the sun itself, with its source, its power. Why? Because there is light, and I have to attribute it to something, right? - Okay.

+ But when I go and look inside of the water particles myself if I can't find the source of that sun when I examine each particle, automatically, even if I don't see it, there's only one option left, and that is the presence of the sun. If those water particles lose that source every time they come into the shade, I would say: "so it isn't from itself after all" and I would automatically look for another source, right? - That's right. + So, we're looking at the universe. How do I see properties such as knowledge, will, power, life, wisdom. I take a look at atoms, they make conscious moves wherever they go.

For example, they come to our body, and enter the system that makes our body; there are atoms in the air as we talk. When we take a look at these atoms, they can transfer hundreds of sounds, and at the same time hundreds of smells and tastes without mixing them up but when I look at these atoms I can't see properties such as knowledge, will, power, life, wisdom or compassion. Atoms that can't see form an eye that sees, atoms that can't hear form an ear that hears, and atoms without feelings can form a human body which has feelings. There's no way I can leave these properties hanged in the air.

Either I will say: "these atoms have these properties", or I will say: "just like the sun, there is someone behind the scenes. His reflections are what I see as reflections of knowledge, will, power and life" and just as I had personally taken a closer look at those water particles, when I take a closer look at atoms when I see that they have no properties, I say: "there must be someone managing these atoms behind the scene because atoms constantly continue processing". In the first example, as we accept the Sun, wouldn't it make more sense for me to accept someone? - So now... You talked a little... a little confusing. You are confusing me. This atom you're talking about...

Looking for compassion, power and so on in the atom, I don't think there's any need to look for them that way. When looking at something thinking "is this in there? Or else..." I can't get proof like that. Actually, what you're saying is about what you're looking for and what you want to find. If I don't seek through a God, but through how nature continued to exist until now, even though I don't have a creator image in my mind, this query continues in the same way and it will find its path. + So can you find a solution? - Is God a solution at this point? + Buddy, I'm saying, if not the solution then what?

Because we said: "properties don't hang in the air", why would an atom come to the eye and turn into an eye cell? Come to the ear and become something else? Or come to the internal organs and turn into another system? Or without the knowledge, will, or power to manage this system at all times, then, shouldn't I attribute these properties to someone? - So, I can't explain it to you like a scientist. In the history of a 13 billion year old universe, how some things came together, how they stayed together, which way they are heading and how, they are all being researched. And a very significant crowd of people have set out to investigate the cause and serious investments have been made.

+ There is an investment, but is there an answer, buddy? That's what I'm asking. I mean, I can't get an answer to this question I'm asking because even if you turn to science, I can see that they don't find these properties in the atom. - I mean, some things don't have to have an answer, we don't have to have found an answer to them. We're looking for the answer. I think it's more important to keep looking. A planet, there is a satellite orbiting it. If I said "It doesn't have will, but a satellite revolves around it", what would you say about this? + I'm asking you the same question. My answer, as I said, is to attribute knowledge, will, power and subsistence to it. What is subsisting?

Keeping everything afloat and managing the system. The moon can't say "I have to stay at this distance from Earth. I have to revolve", or something like that, because it doesn't have the will, power or wisdom to manage the system, I mean, there has to be someone behind this who is managing this system. - And I'm saying that there's something called gravity. It's the Earth's gravity that keeps the Moon at that distance, and the Moon has somehow come in one piece into the Earth's orbit in the right way. + Can you show me gravity as a material? - So. Actually... Experimentally, of course, I can't show it, but I can show you in this way: + as a material. - I can't show it as a material.

+ "I believe in something immaterial", that's what you are saying, right? - No. I could say that using various measuring devices, you can see things today that you couldn't see with your eyes 10 years ago. + Is there anything material about which you can say "this is the law of gravity"? - I mean, if I spit here, it's gravity. Its falling to the ground is gravity. + Great, so this is an observation. So, what's happening? It is two items getting closer. I didn't deny this. Of course, there is what we call "gravity". The law doesn't do the work! For example, if someone said: "smoking is prohibited.

It is punishable by fine" and they post this law here, and if we were to smoke here, could that law fine us? - Of course not, but we're talking about believing in a book full of laws. + Buddy, this is what I want to say: it can't fine us. Who can fine us? An officer who enforces this law can fine us. Whoever put the law here, whoever manages and enforces the law here. In the same manner, I accept someone who enforces and manages this law of gravity. Just as I said, this law itself doesn't enforce. Also, with the law of gravity, just as the moon approaches the Earth and rotates, I am saying that there is someone who manages this law of gravity too.

As a result of His decision, made with His knowledge and power, I say He applies that law with His will. Because, like I said, the law doesn't do the work. Let's say I'm drawing the letter B, and I keep doing it in the same way. I keep moving my hand in the same way. Now when you look at my hand and its movement you say: "it moves the same way all the time. So there is a rule here." You can't say "The rule B does it", the rule B doesn't do the work. I would say there is someone who manages and executes the rule B in the background. Rule B does not draw the letter B! Here too, the law of gravity doesn't execute itself.

I would say: "there is someone who executes this law in the background, does this work, He manages it". - This isn't something constructed that way. We call this moving thing a "law". + Okay, but you're saying that the name you gave is doing this work. - Look, something like this is happening. It's our move to call it as a law, so we feel the need to name it. + And I'm saying: "yes, we're giving it a name". "But that name doesn't do that". - Yes. + And behind it... I'm getting to the same point again. I'm asking who prefers to manage the system with all these laws. When I look at the atom, and also when I look at laws such as gravity, again, I see they don't have properties.

I am saying that, by accepting someone with knowledge, will, power, and life behind the atom, who manages the system with these names we call as ''laws'' actually we have to accept the properties of that someone. - For example, If I prefer a scientific perspective, this is still a theory for me. It isn't exactly something that's been proven. + Which one? - The idea that it is being managed, because do we see who manages? We don't, but of course you're going to say something like the sun example, but... + But you also said "managing", without accepting the law, you agreed to something you didn't see. - What do you mean? + You said: "the law... The law of gravity does it but I don't see it".

- I mean, you can't see the mind either. We accept the existence of the mind. I am not talking about that. As you accept the God, the divine phenomenon as something. It doesn't have to be that way. So God doesn't have to be the same. He doesn't have to be. When you explain the universe not with this, but with something else, you can find a path. You can keep finding your way and walking. + Buddy, then tell me. So like I said, how do these atoms do it then? Tell me. Three people are born every second. - DNA makes this complex structure in humans. + Can a book build a palace? Let's say we see the project book of this building here.

When I look at this book, I see indications about how to build that building. Can this book make this building? - No it can't. But using this book, someone who can apply this book can make something. + That's great buddy, and in the same manner... - But also it's - to do with your point of view, you see something there, you see information. With the information "Umm... This is how it should be done here" you find it through your mind or so on. It isn't that. + DNA is a book, not a writer. Someone's doing it with the DNA book. Just like you said. - Look, DNA is a book for us to read.

When making the structure it isn't in the form of a book for the structure, that is, the structure acts depending on the shape and structure of the DNA, it is pushed actually. + Who's pushing? - The DNA itself is pushing it. + The DNA is a book. Let's look at the DNA: adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine. There are four bases. Let me look at these again. They are made up of four elements: Hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and the fourth is carbon. These are the atoms, and there are also elements. Again, now, when you look at them, they don't have these properties, no knowledge, no will, no power, no life. Again, I don't see these properties in them. "Then a book can't build this building.

There is someone" and just as we say this the presence of a manager, a builder who does it with the DNA book comes to mind again. I'm getting to the same point again. The DNA can't do it either. The law can't do it either. And atoms can't do it either. I mean, we've been through all of this, and what we've been witnessing, like we can see very clearly in the first example and in these examples too, behind it, behind the DNA, behind these systems we see, that we call laws, behind atoms, shouldn't there be someone to do it? - To figure it out somehow, or not to understand it, is normal.

It may be difficult for me to understand it that is, "inside matter, more precisely, to an atom, someone, something, a consciousness gives direction". Let's say it is so. "Well?" I say again, I mean, I'm living my life. As a matter of fact, I'm living my life like any other living creature. Within the limits of my life, I'm trying to get to the limits of it. We live in a certain way. "Won't the mind go there?" you ask. Yes, it does, but that doesn't mean it's an evidence. + Then what is evidence? So, if your mind goes there, what is the evidence for you? Do you say "I have to see it"?

- I'm not saying that it is that much shallow but, I mean, of course, yes, I need to see it, or have a better explanation, or maybe I need causality in some way. When I think about it intensely like this... Those are good questions you're asking. It's a religion that ultimately leads to the faith of God. The requirements of the leading religion, or the places where it pushes people, the ride, I didn't enjoy it etc. + Were the rules too much? - I mean, more than "too much", it didn't seem suitable for today, I mean, I can't present an argument like that "there is no God". It's a journey of the mind. And the journey of the mind ends where it is satisfied. I mean, It's a very deep topic.

+ Now, maybe we talked about one topic, a few topics, but I'm ready to talk about hundreds of topics. I'm ready to explain Islam too. And I'm prepared to prove that those facts are valid today too. Like I said, we'll talk again. - Thank you.