Response to Al-Dahiyeh

Peace be upon you. I am not a follower of the program (Al-Dahiyeh), but a particular episode caught my attention. I watched it and understood Al-Dahiyeh's method. Therefore, my response here is not specifically about this episode, but rather about his general approach.

Presentation of Al-Dahiyeh's Argument: "O Wonders of Coincidence"

The episode is titled: "O Wonders of Coincidence." In this episode, Al-Dahiyeh begins with an introduction that there are events that seem to have an extremely low probability, but if you change the assumptions, their probability becomes stronger, and perhaps their occurrence becomes almost inevitable.

He said, for example: the monetary coin, if you assume that the two sides are different, and you throw it in the air, the probability of one side appearing is (50%). Whereas if you assume that the two sides are the same, then when you throw the coin, the percentage of the specific image appearing on the coin will be (100%). So, what do you say, Al-Dahiyeh?

He said, therefore, come to the universe we live in... the physical constants in it are fine-tuned to the utmost degree. If any of them change, the universe will collapse, and there will be no planets, no life, or anything. This thing makes us think that this universe is designed for us.

He said, no, it is not necessary that it is designed for us, but rather a simple change in probabilities will explain this precise tuning of the physical constants of the universe. What is this simple change? He said, to assume that there is an infinite number of universes - meaning (in English) multiple universes, multiverse "Multiverse" - each with different physical constants, so by coincidence, this universe appeared with us, and it has physical constants suitable for our life, and the result: no one intended to fine-tune this universe we live in, but rather this universe appeared by coincidence. A simple change in assumptions - infinite universes - led to a significant change in the result: the universe appeared by coincidence.

Scientific and Rational Discussion of Al-Dahiyeh's Argument

Before I give a general description of this speech, let's discuss it scientifically.

1. Where did the material come from?

If I told you:

• Do you see this room? What is the probability that the number (5) will appear (10) times at the same time?
• Where does it appear?
• On the spinning wheels.
• Which wheels?
• No... it's not the lottery wheels!
• There are no lottery wheels in the room?!
• No, it is assumed that there are lottery wheels.
• Whose assumption?!

Okay, and who moves the wheels?

• No, it is assumed that there are (10) kids moving them.
• No, let's go back to your question without additional assumptions. The probability that the number (5) will appear (10) times in an empty room is exactly (0%).

(Al-Dahhi) started by playing the game of assuming the wheels and the kids in an empty room. So when you tell me: What is the probability that there is a universe with physical constants set to suit our life in it? I say to you: No, let's stop at: What is the probability that there is a universe at all, before we talk about the word "constants" and the word "set."

Without a Creator, there is no universe at all, no wheels, and no room. In fact, there is no material that the universe is made of. It is empty talk to discuss probabilities without there being any material for the probabilities to act upon.

You will say to me: Oh brother, (Al-Dahhi) does not deny the existence of the Creator! He is talking about mathematical sciences and probabilities. No, let's organize our thoughts a bit. It is not possible to bypass the issue of the material that claims to have formed infinite universes. You are faced with one of two things:

Either you are forced to acknowledge the existence of a God to solve the problem of the existence of matter alone. In that case, you will say that this God creates matter and leaves it to interact and combine in a random, unintended way. By chance, one of them turns out to be suitable for our life. This is a ridiculous and contradictory assumption! Imagine a Creator without limits who creates matter, showing His wisdom, power, and knowledge in its tiny particles and the arrangement of its particles. But then He acts afterward in a frivolous manner, creating excessively without purpose. A single particle of this matter will refute this silly notion.

Or you say: No, there is no God. Then, where did the matter come from?

• It created itself.
• I wonder, is this science or nonsense?
• No, it is scientific talk, and we will call it the "theory of the spontaneous generation of matter."

First of all, guys, take note that not everything with the word "theory" means it is respectable and weighty. I explained in detail in the episode "The Pancake Theory" and the episode "All Roads Lead to Superstition" that the word "theory" is placed before ridiculous nonsense to give it gravitas, even though it is just a disappointment!

Secondly: Do you remember Louis Pasteur and before him, Francesco Redi in the 17th century, who proved the invalidity of the theory of the "spontaneous generation of living organisms from inanimate objects"? Meaning, the backward people in Europe used to think that flies arise spontaneously from garbage, and that rats arise spontaneously from rotten meat. Louis and before him, Redi, proved the invalidity of this backward theory. And that living organisms, such as flies, actually arise from microscopic organisms like fly eggs.

The one who says these days: matter arises from nothing, matter creates itself... is more backward than the backward Europeans in the Middle Ages; because he tells you: No, not only do living organisms arise spontaneously from inanimate objects, but inanimate objects arise spontaneously from nothing. In the example of the room and the wheels, it is as if our friend, when you ask him: Okay, and where are the wheels and the kids? He tells you: No, assume they arise spontaneously, and we will call this assumption the "theory of self-generating wheels" and the "theory of self-generating kids." Is this science or nonsense?

Okay, let's ask ourselves: What forced them into this nonsense and into these theories? What made the existence of matter a problem? And the precise adjustment in the constants of the universe a problem? And the beginning of life on Earth a problem? And the existence of sophisticated living organisms a problem? What made all of this a problem is that they denied the only correct, rational, natural, logical, and scientific explanation: that all of this must have a Creator.

When you exclude this single explanation, everything collapses, and existence becomes a problem, and you need delusion and madness to solve these problems. This nonsense is called theories. As we explained in detail in more than 25 episodes about the "theory of random evolution," how the priests of false science have predetermined the result they want to reach: that there is no Creator of living organisms, and they go in every direction afterward, opposing reason and science to prove that there is no Creator.

"Spontaneous generation of matter," "infinite universes," "spontaneous generation of the living cell," and "random evolution," all of these are atheistic delusions intended to patch the gaps left by denying the existence of a Creator. What (Al-Dahhi) and his ilk do is that they come with one of these ridiculous delusions, talk about it in scattered episodes, and try to convince you of it. As if he is telling you: Let's leave now the origin of matter and evolution, let's talk about the precise adjustment, and try to convince you of it separately: that there is no evidence of a Creator in it.

If you are convinced, he will bring you in another episode to convince you that the sophistication of living organisms has no evidence. And in the end, you will collapse from within all the evidence of the existence of the Creator with myths and delusions they call theories. Therefore, this is the first point - before (Al-Dahhi) brings you into the topic of probabilities, ask him: The matter that is being used for probabilities, where did it come from? Notice how (Al-Dahhi) bypasses this important question and leads you into a maze of probabilities with misleading talk, as we will see.

2. The Nature of Infinite Universes

Number (2): The infinite universes you are talking about, (Dahhi), other than the universe we are living in, are they regulated or not? Are they consistent and follow specific physical laws? Or not? Also, the answer must be one of two:

Either they are not regulated - meaning random universes with no planets or galaxies - because matter does not know how to arrange itself, or perhaps there are planets but they are chaotic and collapsing. Let's discuss this scenario: If you are sitting at your desk, and every second, a pile of iron and wires is thrown onto the desk from above, and you are removing them from your desk, and suddenly, a device (iPhone) falls onto the desk, with all (English) applications on it, charged and ready to use. Would your conclusion be that this device was assembled, charged, and had (English) applications installed on it by chance?

People, those who do not believe in this nonsense, how can they believe that this universe - the most complex universe compared to this device beyond comparison - comes by chance?! And we will also return to the first point in this case: that - regardless - if matter is coming to you, even if it is chaotic, there must be a creator for this matter, let alone (English) the sophisticated cell phone! This is the first possibility, (Dahhi): that the universes you are talking about are not regulated.

The second possibility: that they are regulated and consistent but with physical constants different from our universe, which did not allow for the existence of life in these other universes. Okay, if you see a car that is suitable for human riding, and billions and billions of other vehicles that are consistent, whose parts are complete, but do not suit human riding, would the conclusion be that this car and all the vehicles came by chance?! Or that behind them is an intelligent creator? If there are infinite universes that are consistent, this means: an infinite number of evidence for the existence of a precise, wise, powerful, and knowledgeable God.

3. Physical Constants and Laws as an Actor

Now let's move to the third point... (Dahhi) repeats the phrase (physical constants). Is there something called (physical constants) without a creator?! Even if we overlook that nothingness does not create matter. Does nothingness - nothing - allow matter to also move regularly without any interference? One of the most foolish points of atheists: they make the system, which indicates the existence of an organizing God, an alternative to the existence of God.

Imagine if every day you put a dinar on your desk... first day a dinar, second day a dinar, and so on... and after 10 days, a person came and said:

• This money was not put by anyone...
• Why?! He said to you: I know how this money came: every day a dinar, and therefore, the one who created it is the law: "every day a dinar". Is this man a scientist or a fraudster?

Laws - brothers - are only attempts to describe some phenomena that occur regularly, and they are not actors. Light is not the one that chooses to travel at a speed of 300,000 kilometers per second, nor is the law of the speed of light the one that makes light travel at this speed. The word (law): it is a description, not an actor, not a will, not a chooser, not a knower, not a doer, and does it regularly. When light travels at a constant speed, there must be a mind of an actor who made it travel at this speed and regularly.

When I type on the keyboard at a speed of 100 words per minute, I write a poem. Imagine when someone comes to look at the poem and says: this poem was not written by anyone. Then, how did it come? He says to you: it was written by the law "(100) words per minute". This reasoning and nonsense is what the physicist who denies God: Stephen Hawking "Stephen Hawking" practiced, the owner of the myth: the multiverse that (Dahhi) promotes Hawking told you in his book: (The Grand Design): "Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

The mere existence of the law - brothers - means that there is someone who made it a law, organized things in this way, so it is evidence of a creator, not an alternative to a creator. Law: means that nothing in this universe is moving randomly. Therefore, note, apart from the issue that (Dahhi) goes beyond where the matter came from, he makes you think as if the universe we are in can exist in a fleeting moment, where the physical constants of the universe were fixed and that's it. This stability continues automatically thanks to the law of gravity, the law of the speed of light, and so on... as if the law is an actor with abilities.

4. Simplifying the Complexity of the Universe

The fourth point: (Dahhi) practices the funny simplification when he measures the universe with its extreme complexity as an example of the rise or fall of the stock market or profit and loss. You know, brothers: what does the discipline of the universe mean? Let's take the simplest thing in it... more than 90 natural elements discovered on earth, and "neutrons" in each of them and "protons" in specific sizes of nuclei with precision that attract "electrons" in orbits with the necessary dimensions. These elements reacted with fixed chemical laws to give compounds necessary for life, and again, these laws must have an actor, an organizer, and a precise one.

Earth's gravity to the necessary extent, so we do not float in the air, nor do our feet stick to the ground. Earth rotates at a precise speed so that night and day alternate for sleep and work. A precise distance from the sun so that it does not burn us nor do we freeze. The degree of water evaporation, the density of the air, the proportions of the elements in the air, all suitable for our life. Thousands of billions of planets and stars move at an appropriate speed in defined orbits with extreme precision.

So even if we overlook the topic: (where did the matter come from?) and even if we overlook the topic: (who set the constants? And who fixed them?), you need to calculate for me at the level of a single atom like hydrogen, what is the probability that the size of the hydrogen nucleus is as it is? Not smaller nor larger? What is the probability that the electron is at this distance from the nucleus? Not smaller by one or two angstroms or a fraction of an angstrom, nor larger by a fraction or two or a million to countless possibilities in three-dimensional orbits? What do these dimensions and proportional relationships mean, which prepared hydrogen for reactions and for its appropriate place in the composition of materials for living beings? Go to carbon, nitrogen, and the rest of the elements... this, and we are talking about the simplest units that make up matter. That is, there is no significant probability for the random arrangement of its particles in this form.

And (Dahhi) comes to measure for you not the single atom, but the entire universe - with everything in it - based on binary assumptions: loss and gain, and the two sides of the coin. And he comes to convince you that there is a number that can be assumed... (1) to the power of so many... and since there is a number, there is a possibility. Nonsense or science, guys?

5. Is the Multiverse an Experimental Science?

The fifth point: Is the assumption of the multiverse an experimental science "Science"? Are these infinite, random, spontaneous universes an observed, tangible, witnessed science, or are their effects observed? Can you answer us, the multiverse people? Can you answer us? What are these universes composed of? What type of atoms do they have? How many elements do they contain? What are the laws that describe their system? Well, atoms require very precise physical constants that bind their neutrons to their protons and electrons, and a simple manipulation of the relationship between these particles gives us a nuclear explosion. Are these controls the same and preserved in other universes? How can they be the same? Well, if they are not preserved, what are the alternative constants in these universes? Why don't these universes collide with each other? How is it that they haven't destroyed the universe by now, given that they are infinite? Aren't the universes expanding? And if they are expanding, why don't they collide with each other and with us? Or will you say that there is a very, very large void? Well, where did this void come from? I mean, this place? Does your multiverse answer any of these questions?

So, is it an experimental science, an observed, tangible, witnessed science, or are its effects witnessed? Or is it a foolish response from a confined person to the question: Who created the universe if not the Creator? The confined person tells you: multiverse and that's it. As if we are talking about some soap bubbles. Take heed, my brothers, we do not deny the possibility that there may be many other universes, maybe yes, maybe no. What we deny is the assumption of their existence by chance; to explain the phenomenon of fine-tuning.

An objector will say: Well, you also claim the existence of a god, even though he is not observed by experimental science? I say to you: We do not confine the definition of science to experimental science as you do. Rather, science results from reason, innate disposition, true knowledge, sense, and experimentation, and all of these produce science and also produce certainty of the existence of unseen, intangible realities as we have explained in detail in the episode: (The Abducted). By reason, there must be a first cause for the series of causes, and this first cause must not depend on anything in its existence, and the laws of matter do not apply to it, so we cannot require its observation by experimental science, otherwise we enter into an infinite regress; and this is impossible by reason as we explained in the episode: (Why Must There Be a Creator?) And science observes the effects of this Creator, indicates His knowledge, power, and wisdom. And if you deny the observation of the effects, then you deny science itself. The matter is not that believing in one Creator is easier than believing in infinite universes. The matter is not a matter of ease. The matter is: reason versus irrationality, science versus foolishness.

6. Using Vague Statistical Terms

The sixth point: (Ad-Dahhi) speaks vaguely [fantastically] about an unspecified point, such as his speech about the normal distribution "Normal Distribution" versus the Cauchy distribution "Cauchy distribution." He tells you (Ad-Dahhi): What was happening once every (3.5) million times under the assumption of the normal distribution, will happen once every (16) times under the assumption of the Cauchy distribution. Who is this that was happening? What point are you talking about, (Ad-Dahhi)?

Of course, as an associate professor, I deal constantly with statistics and curves, and I publish about them in my scientific papers: I know that (Ad-Dahhi's) speech is nonsense and nonsense in the air and the use of terms for dazzle only. The point is that Ad-Dahhi tells you - in the end -: Of course, you don't understand anything, the important thing is that... and he goes to give you a general rule. And in order to give credibility to his speech, he goes to speak in a foreign language. He means that he is an educated person who reads science from its origins, and mentions to you the names of foreign scientists, so that's it, whether it was said by Richard or John, he has told the truth. You don't understand anything, but the respected foreigner said it, so rent your mind to this foreigner; because you, the Arab follower, are a beast [do not understand], and the foreigners [are the ones who understand]. The psychologically defeated person, who is inflamed by his religion and nation, becomes any foreign word has a shine to him.

Take heed, young people, it is not the foolishness of the multiverse, nor all the atheistic theories whose only concern was the denial of the existence of the Creator, that brought man to space, nor did they perform operations beneficial to human health. These atheistic theories are completely valueless as we have shown, for example, in the episode: (Is the Theory of Evolution Really Beneficial to Humanity?)

7. The Fallacy of Human Existence Inference

The seventh point: In order to convince you (Ad-Dahhi) that the universe came by chance, he brings you another piece of evidence... the universe could have been anything, but because we exist in it, this places constraints on the cosmic constants, not the other way around. Do you know what this means? You want to travel from (Cairo) to (Istanbul), for example, so the airplane will generate its parts from nothing, then it will be assembled, then it will carry you and fly, and it will not fall to the ground, and it will not escape the atmosphere into space, then it will land on the appropriate runway at Istanbul Airport smoothly without crashing. And all of this will happen by chance; because you want to go to Istanbul, not the other way around... not that there must be an airplane, and all of this happens on purpose; so that you can go to Istanbul. But because we exist in it, this places constraints on the cosmic constants, not the other way around.

Summary "Small Changes in Assumptions"

Come, brothers, now we summarize the topic. Al-Dahhi says to you: If you assume that both sides of the coin are the same thing. So when you throw the coin, the probability of a specific side appearing will be (100%). A simple change in assumptions leads to a significant change in probabilities, and consequently, it is possible that our existence came by chance; with a simple change in assumptions. What may seem (in English) practically impossible can become something very likely to happen.

Let's look at the simple change in assumptions...

1. Matter created itself from nothing.
2. Nothing created from this matter protons, neutrons, electrons, and smaller particles.
3. Nothing organized the relationship of these atomic particles with each other.
4. Nothing created the necessary number of types of atoms and carried out reactions between them with fixed laws; to produce the necessary compounds.
5. Nothing brought forth planets, stars, and galaxies from these atoms and compounds.
6. Nothing made each of them rotate in its own orbit.
7. Nothing created the necessary physical constants in the universe and on Earth.
8. Nothing fixed these physical constants and prevented their change.
9. These eight assumptions we mentioned... we will assume like them or otherwise for an infinite number of universes, about which we know nothing.
10. And we will assume that nothing prevented our universe from colliding with these universes despite the expansion of our universe and its movement among this infinite number of universes.
11. And we will assume that nothing created the place where all this happens.
12. And we will assume other assumptions; so that nothing produces life and its diversity.

You see... a simple change in assumptions to lead to the result: that the precisely fine-tuned universe came by chance. You see, brothers, the problem when you follow people who are not trustworthy, how they start with you with entertainment and nonsense until they end up making you doubt your religion! And in any case, praise be to Allah that many of the youth commented on Al-Dahhi's words with rejection and condemnation. I liked in this episode to clarify... how his words contradict reason and science; so that we, brothers, know that true science cannot come with something that contradicts our religion, and praise be to Allah.

Conclusion and Quranic Verses

After all this, brothers... remember the saying of Allah -the Most High-: "Indeed, it is Allah who holds the heavens and the earth, lest they cease. And if they should cease, no one could hold them after Him. Indeed, He is ever Forbearing and Forgiving." [Fatir:41]. "The work of Allah, who has perfected all things. Indeed, He is Knowing of what you do." [An-Naml:88]. And know the meaning of the saying of Allah -the Most High-: "Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence." [Al-Baqarah:255]. The Sustainer over His creation, so nothing is independent of Him for the twinkling of an eye. And peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.