# Toughest Atheism Questions to Muslim Scientist! - He Refuted the Claims One by One

- Language: en
- Published: 2026-08-26
- Canonical: https://blog.towardseternity.com/en/blog/toughest-atheism-questions-to-muslim-scientist-he-refuted-the-claims-one-by-one
- Source video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-QuXd-Lv8M
- Channel: Towards Eternity

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

---

Is the statement "Most scientists are atheist" true? Where do you think science will be in 100 years? When people go out into the streets, what kind of world will they see? Probably, anything we hear about the future everything is wrong. But probably, in 50 years or 100 years, we will have such things that we haven't even imagined. That is beyond human imagination. 50 years from now, when the people look back to our time, this time will look like a stone age. All the scientists in the future will be, I think, strong believers and very conscious believers. They'll know why they believe, who they believe. And the world will be a different place then. Assalamualaikum Prof. Yunus Cengel.

Welcome to Towards Eternity. Thank you so much for accepting our invitation. We are very honored to have you with us. We know that you are author of bestselling books that are used in engineering faculties, you have award winning works that have been translated into many languages. What kind of work have you done, and still have been doing so far? By training, I am a mechanical engineer. I finished my B.S. from Istanbul Technical University. And then I did my a masters and PhD in the USA at North Carolina State University. And then I was a faculty member at the University of Nevada, Reno for many years. And my specialty area is energy.

I write books, I write articles, I give talks about energy. Where do you think science will be in a hundred years? When people go out into the streets, what kind of world would they see? Oh, boy. Probably, anything we hear about the future like 50, 100 years from now, everything is wrong. I can also give you my prediction. But again, probably I will be off by a large margin. Why? Because, we are thinking using what we see today, what we have today. We simply make extensions of them. But probably, in 50 years or 100 years, we will have such things that we haven't even imagined. That is beyond human imagination. It will be very exciting. And the good things will be amazing.

But the bad things also will be very scary. I mentioned dark matter, dark energy. We cannot perceive them. We cannot measure them. We cannot sense them. We know they are there. They exist, but they don't interact with physics. And now imagine, we understand dark matter, dark energy better, and we have control of it. We have, let's say, the ability to manipulate it. It will be a new game, in the universe. That is, we will able to do things with raw material, which is nothing at all of the physical world, that is made of electrons, protons, neutrons or photons or whatever. Completely different. Still exerting an influence.

Imagine, let’s say, you will build a car or transportation or vehicle something. Doesn't have any weight, doesn't have any friction. Is not limited by a lot of things. Who knows what kind of transportation we are going to have, in that environment. So it is difficult, really, to imagine the future. But certainly I think the 50 years from now, when the people look back to our time, this time will look like a stone age. Therefore, I think, our predictions about the future as to what we will have, it will fall very short from what we will actually have. Is the statement “Most scientists are atheists" true? Why is there such a perception?

And it is thought that the more one is involved in science, the further they move away from faith. What do you think about this? Well, if you look at the statistics, with people and with scientists, like the general population, about the 90%, they believe in a creator. If you look at the scientists in the world, that ratio is about 50%. That is more than half of the scientists in the latest research I have seen, they believe in a higher being, higher authority, a creator. Therefore, the notion of scientists, you know, "Don't believe in God", it is not true. That is, the research doesn't support that.

Because most of them do, But probably those who don't, they speak maybe louder, so that we hear them a lot, or they attract a lot of attention that way. But there is nothing between science and belief that is incompatible. Because science simply deals with the observable existence, physics. Religion deals with nonphysical things, like deities, angels... Therefore, when a scientist says, for example, “Oh, yes, there is a God.” It reflects his or her belief. When a scientist says, “Oh, there is no life after death,” for example, it also reflects his or her belief. Nothing to do with science. But science does not necessitate disbelief. There is no such thing.

So, in light of what you have explained so far, that it's really easy and clear to arrive at the conclusion that there is a metaphysical realm. Why do these smart people can not arrive at that conclusion? What prevents them from seeing this reality? Oh, there are many reasons. One thing is, I think, the ego, okay? Many scientists have big egos, and they think they are the most knowledgeable people. And when they imagine a being capable of doing anything, seeing the entire universe... They have a difficulty imagining such a being because in their research, they haven't seen any such being. You talk about something that they have never seen, they will be distant.

They will say, “OK, can you show me something like that?” They see the cause-effect relations. And then they think just knowing the cause is sufficient. They are blinded by this. They fail to see the secret hand behind the scenes, because every time you do something, you get the same result. Every time, let's say, you combine oxygen and hydrogen, you get water. To the point that, it is like, automatic. Let's say, when you put a seed into the soil and you wait and you see that seed growing roots and then leaves, the trunk of it, et cetera. Giving apples, cherries, whatever. That is, when you resort to the cause, the result just happens.

And you get the notion that, “It just happens by itself.” Because it is so easy there. And this gives the illusion that things just happen. And the laws and forces of physics are enough, but they are not enough. As I mentioned before, even a simple needle, a hole on one side and a sharp edge on the other side. The laws and forces of physics cannot do it. When you find it during an archeological excavation, you say there must be beings with intention, with knowledge, and with the ability to do it.

But when, let's say, they see an apple tree, when they see a cell, with billions of molecules working together, when they see a leaf, working like a chemical factory, somehow, they fail, I think, to use this logic. That is, you know, there must be things that go beyond the laws and force of physics. Because, in here, we see a lot of knowledge, a lot of purpose. And the laws and forces of physics, they are not purposive. So I think, eventually they'll come to that. So, I think the scientific community is progressing in the right direction. That there is something, beyond this. All the scientists in the future will be, I think, strong believers and very conscious believers.

That is, they'll know why they believe and who they believe. And the world will be a different place then. So they are the majority, the ones that are believing in God. But within the scientific community, are power and authority in the hands of disbeliever scientists? For example, are you free to publish articles that refer to a creator? I don't see any problem at that. For example, my research area of expertise is energy, and it doesn't have any ideological connotations. You know, energy is energy. So in physical sciences, in let's say, physics, chemistry, engineering, we don't have any problem.

But in life sciences, when living beings are involved, then I think there is a lot of prejudice there. There is a tendency to reduce everything to physics, including life. For example, you just have to call life chemical reactions, okay? But chemical reactions have never produced life. That is, that contention is false from the beginning. And you have to subscribe to the ideology that everything is random, and things just happen by themselves randomly. It is kind of imposed. If you do something that kind of goes against it, then, you will have problems there. But things are getting, I think, to a more healthy environment. Let's say in the past, matter was everything.

The materialistic worldview. But nowadays, I think, the whole scientific community almost agrees that, it is not really the matter, it is the knowledge. And right now, many prominent authors call life "Knowledge", which is nonphysical. Knowledge, not the symbols. Because the knowledge on DNA, for example, they are simply symbols there. Clusters of atoms there, okay? And they portray knowledge or the symbols of information as a powerful, knowledgeable, skillful agent, which they are not. So they are still falling short. But I think this is a progress. That is, knowledge is important. And knowledge in action obviously is important.

And eventually, I think what will happen is, people will see that the symbols of knowledge, they are not capable agencies. A recipe, for example, "How to make a cake?", okay? You can have all the ingredients for a cake, and then put a recipe there as knowledge. Now, imagine someone claiming, "Oh, the information is here, and that information will take these ingredients and make a cake out of it" That doesn't happen. That is, right now they portray information as a knowledgeable, powerful being. Still an illusion there. But, eventually I think they will wise up and they will see that those clusters of atoms, whether it is a gene or what, a word or sentence in a recipe book.

They cannot do anything. They cannot read themselves, they cannot understand it, and they cannot, simply, execute those instructions there. If you look at a cell, for example. Okay, RNA copies a gene, for example. And then using the right amino acids, they build the right protein. They give the whole credit to the gene, instructions. Instructions don't do anything. You do things following the instructions. For example, we get something. For example, you order a bicycle, it needs an assembly. It comes with instructions, right? And you take the parts out and put the instructions next to it, and you wait for the instructions to put the parts together. That doesn't happen. Simple logic.

You need an agency with the ability to read, to understand and the skill to put those pieces together. And the power there. Other subjective qualities like, consciousness, free will, initiation. Even that initiation, to initiate something. Again, nothing to do with the signals, or whatever. For example, the telephone, the cell phone there. A lot of activity, right? Like a brain. But a cell phone never decides to call somebody. They are passive. Those signals don't do anything. We need an agency from outside, to really tell, to call a person. If let's say, you put your computer on the table or your cell phone, they just sit there, okay? They will not do anything there.

So eventually I think, we will get there. So, recognizing knowledge as the centerpiece in creation, in existence, is the major step. So, eventually we will see. And it is being seen right now. I think life is described as "purposive" in almost all the books and articles that I read. And if there is a purpose, then there is a being with purpose, obviously. And then, since it is done in a purposive way, then knowledge comes with it, and the skill comes with it. And the ability, the power comes with it. Does this mean that the Creator must intervene and manage all the events at every moment? Because some might find this hard to accept at first glance.

Couldn't it be the case that God has established a perfect system and just left it to function by itself? So He created and left. They gave the example of the grandfather clock. Kind of a pendulum, going back and forth. Once you set the clock, it will just do this motion. If you look at the example for simple things, okay, nothing wrong with that. But this is not a plausible notion because things are not that simple. The universe is very complicated. Imagine, we have a factory. And initially, you set up everything. And then you put the rules. And then you say, "Okay now, I don't need any managers. I don't need any workers. I don't need anything.

So, this factory will just keep running." Okay, no one in the world dared to do that. Because, when things get complicated, okay? Many things will go wrong, and it will come to a halt very quickly. You need to upkeep it. Okay, let's say the factory runs. But if, let's say, it is that way, that you cannot have new factories, you cannot have new things, things will be stagnant. That is, take a picture of the universe today and next you will see the same things. But in the universe, everything is changing. Everything is changing every second. New things are happening, a new universe every day. We have, let's say, the flowers, for example, are coming, blossoming.

We have, let's say, the animals, the cells. Therefore, in this sophisticated universe, just leaving things to themselves and hoping that they'll keep running. Such things... None of them can be the making of the unconscious, non purposive, laws and forces of physics. Behind it, there is intent, there is information and there is power. Which requires continual involvement. When materialist scientists say this: "There were many things we couldn’t explain before, but science has developed and those gaps began to fill. To prove the existence of a Creator, you present the arguments about things that we cannot explain now, which science might explain in the future." What do you say about this?

Let's say, when it comes to life, it is nonphysical. Because if it were a physical, we would have discovered by now. This is not to change. And as for, let’s say, explaining things. And explaining alone doesn't resolve anything. We think that or some people think that when things are explained, it is the end of it. Knowing how, let's say, this cell phone works. An engineer can explain exactly how this works. Explains everything. But we still need to acknowledge, there is a team of engineers behind it. The laws and forces of nature, they don't do purposive things.

If, let's say, there is something with a purpose performing certain functions, there is intent, will, knowledge and power behind it. That is a being with these features. I can show you a dialysis machine, which is an artificial kidney. And I can tell you, as an engineer, how it is made, what the parts are, how they function. It is not the end of it. Behind that machine there is a team of engineers, who had the conception and then the design and the knowledge and the ability to build it. That is, being able to explain is not the end of it. So how does science explain the concept of the soul? Can all our experiences be explained only by hormones? Our happiness, our sadness?

For example, when we feel happy, is it our soul feeling it, or do we become happy just because our hormones are released in our bodies? Obviously all these things that we feel, the subjective experiences, they are nonphysical. Because, for example, I poke a needle on my hand, I feel it. I feel that pain, right there. Right? But physically, there is no need to feel the pain. What happens there? An electric signal is generated, it goes to the brain, which is really a piece of meat. No different than other parts of the body. Made of all the same electrons, protons and the neurons there. No difference. It is simply a body there, it is not superior physics or something. Same thing.

And then suddenly, suddenly, I perceive pain. And, let’s say pleasure. I do something very pleasurable. And then same electric signal, same signal goes to the brain. I perceive, when, let’s say eating something, pleasure! And then, you know, fear and then other things, And then, let's say, even sight. That is, all those things, these are nonphysical. That because physics, body, atoms and molecules, they cannot perceive, they don't know. They know electrons, protons, neutrons, whatever. But they don't know subjective things. Let's say, on the... Just let me give you one example. Let's say, sight, seeing. For example... You think you are seeing me, right? But you don't see me.

You cannot see me. Why not? Now, there is light here. The light is reflected from my body. It goes to your eyes. And then, that light is absorbed by the eye and then converted to electric signal. So what happens is... Now the light is gone, and then those signals go to the brain. That is, they go to the piece of meat. Then what happens? Physics stops there. Thousands, sometimes millions of signals go there. And then, using those signals, a secretive mechanism which is not physical, takes those signals and then builds, let's say, my image, somehow, in your head. And then what you see is that image. Which is a virtual reality image that is generated in your brain. It is what you see.

You don't see me. The whole thing is dark. Also, you don't really hear me. Again, electric signals, same signals. Same ions just moving back and forth, thousands of them. And then they are converted to sounds. So, in the brain, we don't have any membranes vibrating. There is no sound in the brain. It is created, again, by a mysterious mechanism as sound. When we eat something, let's say, the pleasure, the taste, whatever. All the taste, again, are the same way. Now, that means, associated with the brain, there is something. That something is called "the soul" all over the world. Because the brain itself is a meat, piece of material cannot do those things.

We don't have any physical mechanisms. And obviously, based on that input, all these things, let's say sound, taste, touch, whatever, pain, pleasure. These are built there. They are constructed out of nothing. And then we live in that world. That is actually... We live in a virtual reality. It is three dimensional. Right now, we don't have that technology. Right now, in a video as a 3D imaging, okay? And then the funny thing is, "You know? I wonder if there is something nonphysical." You live in nonphysical. Physics is not complete without the laws of physics, right? The laws of physics are not physical. They are not made of basic particles, or electrons, protons and neutrons there.

And without the laws of physics, you don't have physics. Obviously, there is another dimension of creation which is nonphysical. Which kind of, acts on the physics as so what they can do, how they will do it or whatever. And let's say the forces, the push-pull effects, again, they are not physical. They are influences. And it is the reason that the laws and force of physics, they are together. They are, characterized as the agents of physics. And again, called "The government of the universe", by Alfred Mourafard. And then Einstein calls them, the laws of physics as "the spirit of the universe". Like the universe has a soul, a spirit, and that spirit rules the universe.

The laws of physics, and, let's say the influence, the forces of physics are together. And these are not physical. So, pure, let’s say, material things, okay? The physics is not only that. Without, let’s say, the laws of physics, forces of physics, the properties. You don't have physics. When, let’s say, we have a hydrogen, which has one proton, it acquires hydrogen properties. When, let's say, we have helium with two protons. It acquires helium properties, which is very different. That is, the properties are nonphysical. They don't come from the protons. Or maybe you can give an example of gold. Let's say, seven to nine protons put together, they turn into gold. It acquires gold properties.

Same protons... This is like, let's say, a grain of rice. You know the properties of rice. You, let's say, tightly wrap two rice grains. It becomes, for example, hazelnut. Something different. Now, what happened here, for example? So the properties are nonphysical. And then let's say, you make water from hydrogen and oxygen. You cannot predict what you will get. You have to see it. And then you get, let's say, water properties, if you break water apart, those properties are gone. That is, they are created out of nothing. And then when you break it apart, they simply disappear there. Prof. Yunus Cengel, thank you so much for your answers, for informative answers, and insightful answers.

Inshallah we hope you to meet you in future concepts and projects. Oh, thank you very much. It was a pleasure to talk with you.