How Atheism Contradicts Mind and Science: Part 1
Peace be upon you
Dear viewers: Last episode, we
showed how, when the atheist
denied the existence of the Creator
he discredited the innate components
which the human finds in himself
We will show how this leads
to a series of denials:
Denial of mental axioms, morality,
the "purpose of life question"
and free will:
denial of the innate nature of these
components or that they have any value
Why?
Couldn't he have just denied the
existence of the Creator
while maintaining these axioms
which he grudgingly finds in himself;
instead of entering
this spiral of confusion and arrogance?
No!
He couldn't!
Why not?
We will see
We will start with the mental necessities
This episode will have abundant benefits
We will discuss how mental necessities
prove the existence of Allah,
how atheism discredits the
experimental method,
whether atheism respects
or discredits the mind,
the self-contradiction of atheists,
the origin and consequences
of the statement:
"Truth is relative
and there is no absolute truth," and
whether creation is evidence for Allah
or Allah is the evidence for everything
First, dear viewers, faith bases
everything upon the existence
of Allah Almighty
From the perspective of faith:
Allah created the heavens and earth in
truth, imposed —by His wisdom— fixed laws
and created Man with the innate nature
that produces the necessary mental axioms
to enable his mind to discover
the truth of things
The atheist has problems with
each of these nine terms:
Created, Allah, in truth, by His wisdom,
fixed laws, innate nature,
necessary mental axioms, man's mind
and the truth of things
We will explain this in detail
From the perspective of faith, Allah
Almighty says, what can be translated as
"We have certainly created man in the
best of stature." (Quran 95:4)
In other words, Allah equipped man
with an innate affinity for
and the ability to recognize the truth
of perceptions and morals;
and to seek the true purpose of life
These meanings are rooted in the
soul of every newborn
to enable the acquisition of knowledge
"Our Lord is He Who gave each thing
its distinctive form and nature, then guided [it]."
(Quran Translated Meaning 20:50)
This is a form of guidance
We discussed how innate nature
in humans is like the
operating system in a computer
While —in the atheistic perspective—
humans came by chance
and randomness; without any wisdom
and there is no such thing
as innate nature
So, how do you atheists explain
this "operating system" in humans?
First, how do you explain mental axioms?
i.e. the necessary truths
such as: A part is smaller than
the whole; 1+1=2;
two contradictory things cannot co-exist;
everything that begins to
exist has a cause
These are the mental rules upon
which knowledge is built;
yet they are not based on any
prior knowledge
Therefore, there must be One Who
instilled innate nature in humans
to recognize these rules
From here, the journey of atheistic
blunder begins!
Some atheists say,
"These logical rules develop from
sensory inputs:
What the human sees, hears and
processes through induction
i.e. when someone sees an apple joining
another and they become two apples
and many other similar observations,
he forms mental rules:
that a part is smaller than the
whole; that 1+1=2;
that a beaten child feels pain,
so he learns that beating causes pain;
when he sees glass shatter upon
colliding with an object,
he knows that collisions cause breakage;
when he sees that
every effect has a cause,
he establishes the causality principle:
Every effect has a cause
With this answer, the atheist has
reversed the situation!
He has made INPUT a "creator"
of mental rules and equations
This is like saying, "The large amount
of data entered into a computer
developed the programs capable of
analyzing inputs and producing results."
Imagine that we input
two adjacent columns in an Excel sheet
with a large set of numbers
in each column
Will the computer itself
write an equation that:
The first number plus the second number
equals the result?!
NO! Not even if we increased the number
of rows in each column to a thousand
or a million
If we inserted two adjacent columns:
one with a preceding event
and the other with a following event;
would the computer deduce by itself
that the precedent is the cause for
following and figure out
the causality principle?
Atheists realized this dilemma
but they insisted on evading
the idea of "programming"
which can be described as "truth"
which analyzes sensory inputs on one hand
and operates the mind on the other
to reach true results
Because such programming needs
Someone to instill it in the human!
So they insisted that the programming
is a product of the senses
Fine! Regardless of the source
of this programming;
let us assume it is your senses
The key here is that
it reached conclusions;
the most important of which
is the causality principle:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Therefore
this universe must have a cause!
This compelled some atheists to say,
"The conclusions of this 'programming'
are not necessarily facts
They are merely the result of inductions
based on incomplete observations."
Meaning:
Within the scope of observations
everything has a cause
But there is nothing to prevent
something from happening without
a cause in an unobserved remote
part of the universe."
We, as believers, say,
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause."
This is an absolute certain truth
verified by all observations
They say, "The utmost we can say is that
the events we see have causes."
We ask them, "Well, the existence
of the universe:
Shouldn't it have a cause
and thus a Creator?"
They say, "No. We do not see the
causality principle as a general
absolute truth that applies
to all things."
They realized the extent of
their contradiction
because they must adhere to causality
in their daily lives,
in their discoveries, formulation of
theories, in everything...
Whereas, when it comes to the
Paramount Truth,
the Cause of all causes
and the origin of the universe
they deny causality!
What did they do to get out of
this contradiction?
They denied the mental necessities
altogether, including the fact that
whatever begins to exist has a cause
They said, "What we assumed were
CAUSES were just events succeeded
by what we assumed were EFFECTS
They were two unrelated consecutive
events. That is the extent of it!
Thus they thought they escaped the
dilemma of a cause for the universe!
They said that the universe could pop
into existence without a cause
or it could create itself
This view was expressed by the British
philosopher, Bertrand Russell
as well as the physicist Stephen Hawking
and Lawrence Krauss
who claimed that there was absolutely
no basis for something called
"necessary mental axioms"
This came in the course of promoting
the idea of his book,
"A Universe from Nothing"
that the universe
—even if it emerged from nothing—
could have caused itself to exist!
A group of physicists endorsed
his words and celebrated his book
They escaped from contradiction
into insanity!
Indeed, dear viewers:
Such views, even though they
are a form of insanity
still find people
who proudly endorse them
and praise the scientists
who theorize them
This is the price of atheism
and its expected result!
[How Atheism Destroys Empirical Science]
Even though atheists idolize
experimental science
and say, "We do not believe in
metaphysics since it can't be tested,"
nonetheless, their arguments end up
destroying the foundations of science!
All scientific discovery is based
on observing causal relationships
and deducing
absolute scientific conclusions
While according to their principle:
If a million experiments of an acid-base
reaction produced salt and water
they refrain from generalizing it as an
absolute scientific fact
In fact —according to their principle—
there is no problem if the one million
and first reaction produces something
other than salt and water
Because if they derived a scientific rule
and this rule became an absolute truth
they must have established this rule
based on mental necessities:
such as considering fixed laws for the
universe, that acid-base reactions
produce salt and water, etc.
These laws:
Who designed them?
This causation:
Who established it as a firm fact?
Randomness and chance neither set laws
nor create absolute facts
This is why atheists
denied the mental axioms
Hence, the practice and application
of experimental science
becomes meaningless:
HIV is not the cause of AIDS!
The two events just occur in sequence
Diseases have no causes
and treatment isn't a cause for recovery
If a new disease emerges
it is pointless and a waste of time
to spend billions to find its cause
Because we may eventually find that
this disease is without a cause;
just like the universe!
[Self-contradiction Among Atheists]
The atheists who evaded contradiction
by denying causality
must live a contradiction of their claims;
in practical reality!
If the atheist's car were hit by another
car and the owner of the
other car told him,
"My car crashing into yours
is not the cause for its damage.
They are two successive events with
no causal relationship.
So, do not ask me for compensation."
Would the atheist accept it?
If someone stabs the atheist with
a knife then says,
"Your bleeding is not caused by my stab."
Would the atheist accept it?
Of course not!
Atheists are forced to apply
mental necessities
in their lives and sciences
However, when it comes to the
paramount truth:
which is the existence of the Creator
Glory be to Him
they renounce these principles!