I really enjoyed listening to this. Thank you:-) I'm not Muslim - or atheist- I don't really know what I believe. I think dogmatic belief- in a particular religion or politic party or anything really - is the cause of so much harm in the world. I would love to have a faith to guide and support me through life - but have never been able to find one I could believe in strongly enough to reject all the others. So I've ended up navigating through life trying to collect goodness and wisdom wherever it may be found- whether in religion or science or philosophy or just practical examples watching how people around me conduct themselves. Listening to your talks is bringing me great joy and hope - because you are obviously trying to understand others' perspectives and see the good in them even if, in the end, you don't agree with their conclusions. I wish all human discourse could work like this!

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree with you. Dogmatism is the cause of so much harm in the world, and the world would be such a better place if we all appreciated the good in each other and if we committed ourselves to taking benefit wherever we might find it. I hope you enjoy the rest of the videos in the series. Please feel free to reach out to me privately at info@basiraeducation.org if you'd like to discuss anything further.

@muslim_first

Жыл бұрын

If you reflect on the universe and know that there are trillions of planets and only planet Earth has substantial oxygen, water, gravitational force, perfect distance from the sun to support Life. Only Planet Earth has a perfect rotational tilt to give us seasons and a moon that makes Earth a more livable planet by moderating our home planet's wobble on its axis, leading to a relatively stable climate. If you just think about that and question why only Planet Earth has this perfection for our survival. You will question the purpose of our existence and that just proves Islam because we Muslims believe Life is a test. Christianity there is no test because Christians believe a man died for their sins, so where is the test, what is the purpose. Judaism believes only 15 million Jews have a Religion and a connection with our Creator however 8 billion people do not. How is that possible? When all humans have the same organs, brain, heart, and same capacity to worship and have a connection with our Creator. Also if you search all the scriptures, Bible, Gospels, Torah, and the Quran. It is proven that only Quran is unchanged and it is the same as it was first revealed while all the other previous scriptures have been changed. It proves Islam is correct.

@FredFlintstone-qk4dd

10 ай бұрын

@@muslim_firstwe believe in Evolution and science. Your tailbone on xray shows the truth. Why God of Adam and Eve forgot these organs on human beings and appendix like cows 😂? We are rising exponentially. The truth is exposed badly now

@FredFlintstone-qk4dd

10 ай бұрын

@@muslim_first​​⁠e believe in Evolution and science. Your tailbone on xray shows the truth. Why God of Adam and Eve forgot these organs on human beings and appendix like cows 😂? We are rising exponentially. The truth is exposed badly now

Non-Muslim, but this is good. I'm starting to get into casually "studying" Islam (I want to be well-read on every major world religion), and this seems to be the most cerebral apologetics I've seen so far. Not that I've seen really many, anyway, but what little I have seen (Zakir Naik, Yusuf Estes, and a few others) didn't seem very persuasive. Given there are characters like Avicenna and Averroes in Islamic history, though, I knew there had to be Muslims out there today who take that intellectual tradition seriously, and it seems I might have found it here. Against the rising tide of secularism and atheism, I feel building rapprochement and understanding between Muslims and other theists is of necessity. At the very least, maybe atheism will return to its more intellectual roots, like Hume or Nietzsche, rather than the comparatively clumsy Richard Dawkins, etc.

Well reasoned and rationally explained. Love the dominos analogy.

Great video. What I would add is that when Atheists make the analogy of The Spaghetti Monster, Leprechauns, or unicorns, all of those beings, even if figments of one’s imagination, are still “things” and are “new” within the imagination of human beings, which is fallible and limited whereas God is an entity that cannot be imagined except in a faulty manner or as something “created,” such as the famous “Creation of Adam” painting. And, bottom line, nothingness does not produce so if a “thing” exists - it is a creation. Great work.

@Bugsy0333

2 жыл бұрын

Only an intelligent agent can prove something or disprove something. “Nothingness” (by definition) is not equivalent to any identity such as an intelligent agent. Therefore, “Nothingness” can neither prove nor disprove anything.

Great first episode ... 👍

By God of Islam you mean the Creator. The God of Abraham. All monotheistic religions worship the same God.

@tnl-warrior3218

2 жыл бұрын

Yh but he is Muslim

@yousufshah4129

2 жыл бұрын

that's true, but the thing is different people believe in different attributes of God. for example, Christians believe in the trinity, father, son and holy spirit are one god, but muslims believe that God is one and has no partners.

@Basira education, Jazak Allah khair for this series of videos. It is much needed. Masha Allah, I have been debating this issue recently and searching for better answers to help me and Allah has guided me to this video. Alhamdu lillah. I hope you can do this subject full justice and really articulate it as clearly as possible for all us ordinary people. Please try to use simple words as much as possible and take your time with each element. There are many videos out there but although they are good I still feel there is a need to make things even clearer for our non Muslim brothers & sisters. This is a chance for you to really help EVERYONE understand this subject better. After all, that’s our intention. Our intention is nothing more than that.

Imam Rabbani (Ahmad Sirhindi) mentioned that the question should not be “how do we know God exists?” - as the evidence of God’s existence is so undoubtedly manifest to those who have insight (particularly direct experiential knowledge). It should rather be “how do we know we exist?”, the answer being that we know because of God’s obvious existence, since we could not possibly exist otherwise.

Mashaallah very excellent video inshaallah I hope to see more explaining the attributes of a necessary being because I think most people don’t understand what a necessary being is.

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for your comment! You are absolutely right - a necessary being is completely different from anything that we have experienced. The conclusion of the argument in the video is a completely-perspective-changing conclusion.

New atheism’s existence can actually spread Islam further because Islam has virtually no flaws because criticism against Islam is always refuted, and no new arguments have been presented to the table.

Thank you, beautifully explained

Jazakhallahu kharin

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

wa iyyakum!

Really convincing. Great job indeed. Let Allah reward you with jannah and peace of mind

Edit: I really enjoyed the video by the way it was very well explained and rational. In your quran god tells the non believers to listen and reason. "And they say if we had listened and reasoned (to the messengers) we wouldn't be among the companions of the blaze". So I listened to you and used my common sense. That is why I am not completely convinced. My question to you is why can't the line of dominos go to infinity? You say that there must be a being that is not dependant to anything for it to exist for all the things we see in front of us to exist. But why can't the line of contingency go to infinity?

@facetofloor

Жыл бұрын

If there were a past infinity, then it would be impossible to reach the present. If someone claimed that the "year" 2021 was of an infinite duration, then it would be impossible to reach the year 2022. Since the universe can't be infinitely old, it must have a beginning. And since it was preceded by non-existence, the universe itself could not have made itself. it (the universe) necessitates a Being, Who is Beginningless, Incomparable, and Transcendent.

@Chaaaaaaaalie

7 ай бұрын

I would add that this same objection came when the Big Bang was first theorized. The idea that the universe was infinite is not a new one, and it was directly challenged by the Big Bang.

Or balance anything

I'm not sure if I am missing something - you seem to accept a contingent thing can explain a contingent thing - but it then requires explaining and so on. However can one contingent thing explain another contingent thing? In concrete terms using your example, the sun heating air leaving a gap for cooler air to enter thus explaining wind fails to explain why the wind fills the gap no?

Thank you Hamza Sb, you have aptly provided a conceptual & textual structure to my rational belief in God / Allah.

When will you post the next episode on evolution ?

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

In another day or so, insha'allah - please sign up to receive updates (plus commentary) on the videos at www.thinkingmuslimguide.com

@Abdul-xq3cf

3 жыл бұрын

@@BasiraEducation baraka Allahu feekum !

Fantastic explanation of a difficult topic to a lay person. May god be pleased with you and your family ameen 🙏🏿

Allah bless you brother. Ameen ya Rabb alaalameen

I don't know whether you made any video on laws of nature but it would really good if you make one. Because I think it seems to me that one can put laws of nature in place of God as universals that are eternal and noncontingent.

@facetofloor

Жыл бұрын

The so called "Laws of Nature" are not necessary. They are customary norms--and the customary norms could conceivably be different from the way they are--hence, there must be an Eternal One, Who specified the customary norms. Also the miracles and karaamaat demonstrate that the the "Laws of Nature" don't occur by necessity.

Sir Masha Allah such a beautiful and creative side you have discussed brilliant argument I think it is same argument which was imam ghazali had said?

0:04 Not just new, but older ones too! :) 0:45 It as for defining athiesm, he connected atheism with apig-unicormism. 2:01 there is a falacy here. Make your oponent easier to deffeat by making their claims other,, but athiests only not belive in a god/gods Tho it isn't, it is much worse, usually, because most of the time it is connected with thinking harming other people okey...

Atheist here (don't hurt me) I appreciate the philosophical presentation of evidence. Bringing up the theory of contingency had me excited to see how you were to apply this to God. And the Quran says God is not contingent. So that's that? I don't mean to be disrespectful but seeing that we are speaking empirically you know as well as I that this does not hold enough weight academically alone to be considered sufficient evidence. Regardless I enjoyed your video and if you have a chance to respond I will appreciate it. Thanks

@4gravyy442

8 ай бұрын

Well, this is one of the many evidences for God. Another simple piece of evidence is the "Fitra." It's a natural inclination for children to believe in the existence and oneness of God, and that he is beyond anything imaginable. Studies have been done on this, and you may refer to them. Furthermore, there is alot of evidence in the Qur'an from the structure of it, to the knowledge presented, to everything about it really (speaking about the Arabic Qur'an since it is how it was revealed). The way it's structured is beyond anything a human can do, this becomes more evident when you study it... every word and its placement... why that specific word, why that ayaah? why this phrasing? etc... not even to mention the jaw-dropping mathematical wonders in the Qur'an when it comes to nuanced and complex wonders and ring compositions. It gets even more amazing when you learn that the Qur'an was recited and not written until much later... so to have all these symmetrical structures and knowledge (knowledge that wasn't even present at the time btw) is beyond the capacity of any human. Furthermore, when you study history and the development of religion, it becomes evident that not only does God exist, but Islam is the one true religion as it has always been there, and constantly deviated from into polytheism. I'm mostly just summarizing existing evidence that you can look into, and if you'd like I can provide you with sources. My point is that there is a whole ocean of evidence for the existence of God, some evidence is super simple, some is complex, some if super complex etc.. depends on your taste, but its all there

Actually I believe he said "pink unicorn" not "pig-unicorn". The invisible pink unicorn is a popular parody mocking theistic belief, like the flying spaghetti monster. Pardon my pedantry, it's a silly thing to point out :P Secondly, while I do acknowledge and appreciate that you have pointed out in a comment that this is only a proof for a Necessary being and nothing more, I would like to point out (though it may be unnecessary for you) that when Dawkins mentions he doesn't believe in "God", he specifically means the personal interventionist God of theism, not the purely metaphysical concept like the Necessary Being. Or so I think, as he clarifies in the beginning of his book "The God Delusion", where he goes to a pretty lengthy discussion, drawing the line between the "God of the scientists (you may consider the Necessary Being to be included in this category)" and the God of religion. "My title, The God Delusion, does not refer to the God of Einstein and the other enlightened scientists of the previous section. That is why I needed to get Einsteinian religion out of the way to begin with: it has a proven capacity to confuse. In the rest of this book I am talking only about supernatural gods, of which the most familiar to the majority of my readers will be Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament." Anyway, looking forward to your future arguments for the religious case. BarakaAllah

@YusufMullan

3 жыл бұрын

The argument from contingency proves a necessary being that doesn't depend on anything and every atom within the universe depends on it. Einstein wasn't a theist in this sense. When Dawkins says supernatural gods, he means contingent things that have super natural abilities. Personal intervention would need to be proven through a separate argument.

@sadattahmeed7462

3 жыл бұрын

@@YusufMullan //The argument from contingency proves a necessary being that doesn't depend on anything and every atom within the universe depends on it. Einstein wasn't a theist in this sense. // Can you elaborate why? As far as my knowledge goes, Einstein never denied the Necessity of God's Being. He only emphasized that God is a non-personal being. He professed belief in the God of Spinoza, which I believe is a Necessary being. [Read proposition 11 in this entry- plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/ ] He even claimed that the laws of nature necessarily followed from God (This I believe brings him to more in common with medieval falasifas such as Ibn Sina). One may object whether his views were coherent, but as I said, that is completely beside the point. Necessity was never the issue, not even for Dawkins. His contention against a "supernatural God" of theist was simply His personhood and interventionist nature, not contingency.

@YusufMullan

3 жыл бұрын

@@sadattahmeed7462 I guess you're right then. So Einstein believed in a necessary being who is a non-volitional cause (no life, power, will and knowledge).. Dawkins though is ALWAYS comparing God to contingent things (although supernatural) which shows clearly he doesn't understand existence outside of space and time, personal or otherwise. Anyways, this isn't that important.

Mashallah

Masha Allah. This is SORELY needed in this modern age! God bless you folks! Keep up the good work! 👏👏👏👏

That's a bad reason to need a god. It's true that because of contingency, we don't need an interventionist god. But we also don't need it as an essential being. Just state the universe itself is the essential being? It's a way more simple and there for less difficult to prove explanation for the start of space and time

But God is also contingent. Existence does not belong to the essence of any kind of being whatsoever. Anything that exists can also be imagined to NOT be. The ultimate question is, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" But the question can never be answered. The world before us that exists is simply a brute fact, something that cannot be explained. It violates Ockham's Razor to "explain" its existence, by invoking *another* thing - "God" - whose existence *also* cannot be explained.

The problem with the contingency argument is twofold, 1) it doesn't get to god it gets to something necessary so we can just as easily say that the universe itself is necessary, 2) an infinite set of contingencies doesn't require a necessity.

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for your comment! In response to (1) - The universe itself is not necessary. We all perceive it as being contingent because we search for explanations for the way that it is. If the universe were necessary, then we would treat everything as a "brute fact" and there would be no more science. In response to (2) - An infinite set of contingencies doesn't solve the problem but it makes it infinitely worse because now you have infinite number of things to explain instead of just one. This is explained in the fourth video, which is due for release next week, God willing. I would love to continue this conversation with you there.

@bouncycastle955

3 жыл бұрын

@@BasiraEducation 1) that doesn't follow, and we don't perceive it as contingent. We perceive the items in it as contingent, but not the universe itself. This doesn't lead to everything being a brute fact... 2) no, everything is explained by the thing before it. The only thing that would need a separate explanation is the first item in the set but the nature of an infinite set is that there isn't a first item, it goes on forever.

@ifan160

3 жыл бұрын

@@bouncycastle955 actually we do, because current knowledge requires for an explanation for how the universe comes into existence (the most widely accepted is the big bang, but there's others such as the multiverse, etc.) But all these explanations only prove that the universe is contingent and not necessary. Hope this helps!

@rp-physics5963

3 жыл бұрын

@@bouncycastle955 1) If you take a wall. Then the wall is made of clay because the bricks are made of clay. If there is no clay, there wont be any bricks and the wall will cease to exist. thus the wall is also contingent. Similarly, if all matter and energy (the contingent things in the universe) in the universe ceased to exist, there wont be any universe left. thus, the universe itself is contingent. 2) In reality, no matter what you try to explain, you will always end up at a finite and countable number of arguments going backwards. there is no infinte set, the number of explanations are always going to be finite, though maybe large. Hope this helps. Peace.

@bouncycastle955

3 жыл бұрын

@@ifan160 the big bang doesn't explain where the universe comes from nor does a multiverse... Either way, an infinite set still works, as does the universe being necessary. For example, the universe is necessary, within the universe, the big bang happens giving rise to our local presentation of the universe (which is what we often call the universe, but it isn't the universe).

I´m an atheist and I have a question for you: Why do you think it has to be a neccessary being as opposed to a neccessary thing? Why does it need a person to hold up the dominoes? Would it not look the same if the first domino rests on a rock, etc? I agree that there has to be something at the foundation of reallity that needs to be there for all other contingent things to exist. But why God - a concious being that cares about us humans specifically, etc? If I assume that space, time and energy (or maybe something like a quantum vacuum or universal wavefunction) are necessary, the argument works the same way. I think the explanation would be even better because it is simpler.

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for asking these excellent questions. (1) You are right - the argument that I have presented only proves the existence of something that is necessary. What I mean by "being" is "something". The video doesn't prove anything more than that. (2) Nothing in the universe is necessary. We can't just arbitrarily say that space, time, or energy are necessary because they change, and whenever something changes, it means that it could have been some other way, and whenever something could have been some other way, it needs something to make it that way, which means that it is dependent, which is another way of saying that it is contingent. That means that the necessary being (or "thing") is something beyond the physical universe, and that the entire universe depends on it. (3) From an Islamic perspective, this is the most important attribute of God. Our dependence on Him and His freedom from needing us, this is the basis of our relationship with Him. It comes out in the relationship of worship. (4) The dominoes example was an analogy. The purpose of the analogy was to demonstrate that if one thing depends on another, then if the thing that it depends on depends on something else, it doesn't explain the thing that is depending on it. (Sorry for the convoluted description. I hope you get the point!) (5) God has other attributes beyond His necessary existence. I will explain these in future videos, God willing.

I stumbled across this channel. As a Muslim all the evidences presented as "proof" are as wishful as a person who believes idols have power. It's all theory, not logical proofs. A respected sheikh said you cannot proof God by philosophy or metaphysical. It is just a belief which you either have or not. You then choose this path of uncertainty until proven either way. It is hope and faith, not fact

You explained the laws of physics. So, god is the laws of physics ? And who depends god on ? Nobody right ? That's too easy. That's the same lazy argument as "Everything needs a creator." But who created god ? Nobody, right. Your argument only works, because you presuppose, that god wasn't created. You have to prove, that there is a god, our universe isn't possible without a god and that, if there is a god, he/she/it wasn't created. And first of all, you have to define what a god is.

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

It seems to me that what you are saying is this. (1) Everything in the universe is explained by the laws of physics. (2) The laws of physics don't need to be explained by anything. Then you are saying that when the video proved the existence of a necessary being, then: (3) A necessary being doesn't need to be explained by anything. Therefore, (from (1) and (3) above), a necessary being is the same as the laws of physics. You then don't allow anyone to hold that a necessary being doesn't need to be created. But at the same time, you believe that it is fine to hold that the laws of physics don't need to be explained. Based on the above: (1) The laws of physics are descriptions of relations between the contingent things in the universe. For example, when we say that F = ma, we are describing the relation between the force that needs to be exerted and between the mass of an object and the desired acceleration. All of these things are contingent. The description of this relation between contingent things doesn't make the individual contingent things necessary. Therefore the statements (1) and (2) above are both false. (2) If the universe is contingent and it exists, then this is evidence for the existence of a necessary being that is not contingent and doesn't need to be created. The video explained this argument. The belief that the necessary being doesn't need to be created is the conclusion of a reasoned argument. I would love to hear your specific critiques of that argument.

Well why does the thing that hold all these dependencies have to bw god why can't it be the pig unicorn itself who is holding all these dependencies what if it is being hold by some other god not allah or what if it is being hold by time or what if it is not bwing hold at all what if it was infinite to begin to with and was not and will not be hold by anything.

On what Allah or God is dependent upon as per your logic. You say that every thing is dependent upon something. Can you please explain your logic ?

@dan138zig

4 ай бұрын

You missed the point. God is called the necessary being for a reason: He doesn't depend on anything

Wanting good for someone isn't the same as "loving" someone. The Muslim doesn't love the kuffaar.

kinda stretch

@BasiraEducation

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your comment. If you have time, please explain what you mean!

So, the argument for God's existence that is presented here boils down to, "God, as we have defined God, is a Necessary Being, therefore God must necessarily exist." That can be put even simpler as, God exists Necessarily, therefore God necessarily exists. One big problem with this is that it assumes the conclusion of the argument to be true, in order to prove the truth of that conclusion. If all you are going to do is assume it to be true, then why pretend to present an argument at all. This is obviously flawed reasoning. For one thing, I could use this same line of reasoning to prove the existence of anything by simply postulating that it was Necessary. Let's try leprechauns, we will postulate that they Necessarily exist, that everything depends on Leprechauns holding it together. That would mean that because Leprechauns are Necessary in that conception of them, that therefore Leprechauns necessarily exist.

@Yutope464

2 жыл бұрын

Almost, but not quite. For instance, the Amazing Atheist once postulated likewise that any being could be considered necessary (his example, infamously, was a blueberry muffin), and so it could work for anything. However, the necessary being that must exist and also sustains the universe must, by other implications of the argument, be immaterial, very powerful, outside time, etc., and all these "attributes" are what we ascribe to God. So the argument shows that "a being" which is immaterial, etc., etc., exists, which all people call God. As such, if we were to use a leprechaun, this leprechaun must be those things: immaterial, outside time, very powerful, can't not exist, and so would be very unlike any leprechaun you or I know. At that point, the leprechaun is essentially God, and no longer a leprechaun. Now, of course, there are many intelligent atheist philosophers (Graham Oppy, as I always say) who would undoubtedly find other issues in this argument, but the ones you mention, I don't think, are considered majorly damaging to it. Granted, I don't know the common atheist philosopher's retort to this argument, but I imagine it's significantly more complex than you or I would think, given the way philosophy is.

So this guy is just saying that whenever we can't explain some phenomenon, we invent a "necessary being" because we can't just accept that we don't know yet. Well, he's ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. 👏🏻 And that's why "Gods" exist.

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

Not quite! He's saying that no contingent thing can explain another contingent thing (this was illustrated with the dominoes example) and therefore a necessary being must exist. The necessary being is a reasoned conclusion. If you tell me where you disagree with the reasoning, I'd love to engage with you.

Plz listen to Harris sultan

I feel like giving God an attribute that we can't investigate or properly demonstrate, but simply have to accept it by simple assertion just creates more problems than it solves. In this way I think the contingency argument is just creating a problem and then just asserting the solution.

@Abdul-xq3cf

3 жыл бұрын

Prove it, and gives an exemple of attributs please

@Madway

3 жыл бұрын

@@Abdul-xq3cf I don't understand what you said, can you maybe rephrase it?

@Abdul-xq3cf

3 жыл бұрын

@@Madway it’s very clear, prove your point, and give an exemple.

@Madway

3 жыл бұрын

@@Abdul-xq3cf So you want me to prove how saying something that neither of us can demonstrate is true or false is problematic in trying to prove that this something is true?

@Abdul-xq3cf

3 жыл бұрын

@@Madway give an exemple of attributs, and prove that there is an other explication that’s possible and plausible. Otherwise, you should not speak of what’s bigger than yourself.

Let's get something straight, the video, and the argument doesn't prove anything. As you watched those dominoes stretching into infinity you became tired and just created god. At some point you simply assume you've proved your point when you've proved nothing: you do not know the origin and universe any more than any atheist, we're just prepared to admit we don't know.

Inserting a god did it into the beginning of the universe isnt good evidence for a gods existence...how do you know there wasnt always something that existed beyond the universe which isnt a god... maybe something natural has always existed and the universe we know about came from that...how do you know there isnt multiple universes....how do you know anything about a god apart from what people have said about it... you havent provided good evidence for your god....

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

You are responding to the argument for God's existence from the fact that the universe began to exist. That is not the argument that is being made in the video. The video is arguing for the existence of God from the fact that the universe needs something to make it the way that it is. God bless.

@davegonnaway6007

3 жыл бұрын

@@BasiraEducation and you're inserting a god without having any good evidence for it being a god...if the universe needs something for it to exists why are you just asserting it's a god that brought it into existence how can you know this...you dont know...there could be other reasons for the existence of the universe...your god is just your preference...show some good evidence....

@YusufMullan

3 жыл бұрын

@@davegonnaway6007 He answered this same question the other day in response to someone else. Here's what he wrote: Thank you for asking these excellent questions. (1) You are right - the argument that I have presented only proves the existence of something that is necessary. What I mean by "being" is "something". The video doesn't prove anything more than that. (2) Nothing in the universe is necessary. We can't just arbitrarily say that space, time, or energy are necessary because they change, and whenever something changes, it means that it could have been some other way, and whenever something could have been some other way, it needs something to make it that way, which means that it is dependent, which is another way of saying that it is contingent. That means that the necessary being (or "thing") is something beyond the physical universe, and that the entire universe depends on it. (3) From an Islamic perspective, this is the most important attribute of God. Our dependence on Him and His freedom from needing us, this is the basis of our relationship with Him. It comes out in the relationship of worship. (4) The dominoes example was an analogy. The purpose of the analogy was to demonstrate that if one thing depends on another, then if the thing that it depends on depends on something else, it doesn't explain the thing that is depending on it. (Sorry for the convoluted description. I hope you get the point!) (5) God has other attributes beyond His necessary existence. I will explain these in future videos, God willing.

@davegonnaway6007

3 жыл бұрын

@@YusufMullan I understand what is said but what I'm saying is you cant just assert that the reason why we have a universe is a god....you are just making an assumption without having good evidence...

@davegonnaway6007

3 жыл бұрын

@@YusufMullan nobody knows what is beyond our known universe...you are just simply asserting it's a God...

Evidence? Someone has stolen my motorcycle, I believe the motorbike is gone, you believe it's still there, I show you where it was parked, you tell me it's still there. All I need is me to believe it's still there. That's your silly reasoning of an utter nonsense created long time ago for controlling people.

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._* And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists. 5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

@shootingstar5039

3 жыл бұрын

Hi @Theo Skeptomai. Please read the following paragraphs carefully so that things are made clear: 1. WE ALL ACCEPT THAT THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE ARE CONTINGENT: Scientists implicitly accept that everything in the world is contingent. A fact is contingent when it could have been otherwise. That is why a scientist will ask “what made the sun shine?” and point to nuclear fusion. What made it rain? What made the wind blow? You only ask these questions because you know they could have been otherwise. You only ask what made the wind blow because you know it could have not blown. You only ask what made the sun shine, because you know it could have not shown. You only ask what made it rain, because you know it could have been sunny, etc. To explain the first contingent fact, a scientist will point to a second one, and to prove the second one will point to a third, and so on..endlessly. He/she will keep pointing to contingent things until it seems like a never ending series of contingent facts. However the problem is that there is nothing in such a series that makes anything else true, because NO CONTINGENT FACT MAKES ANOTHER ONE TRUE. Let give you an analogy that will show you why. READ THIS ANALOGY TO UNDERSTAND WHY. Analogy: I discover a brilliant new mathematical theorem and present to an audience of mathematicians. They ask for proof that my theorem is true, so I pull up a second theorem and point to it as evidence for the first one’s existence. I proceed to bring up a third theorem as evidence for the second, and then a fourth one to prove the third, and fifth to prove the fourth, and so on. They continue demanding more evidence. So I say, “ don’t waste your time asking me to prove every theorem, because every time you ask me for evidence I will simply pull out another more brilliant theorem because I have an infinite supply of them.” No one will accept this, because no theorem makes another theorem true. It needs to be proven true by resting on axioms. An axiom is a statement that does not need to be made true by anything else. A proof is only adequate if it rests on axioms. The same is the case with contingent things in the universe. No contingent fact is made true by another contingent fact, just as no theorem is made true by another theorem. In order for any contingent fact to be true, it needs to rest on a necessary fact, just as a theorem must rest on an axiom. Thus, when you ask what made a contingent fact true, and you answer by pointing to another contingent fact, you have not in reality answered the question, you have merely delayed the answer. Based on all this, I make the following argument: Premise 1: A contingent fact can only be made true by a necessary fact. Premise 2: The facts in the universe are all contingent. Conclusion: Therefore they were all made true by a necessary fact. Let me know if you have any follow ups.

@theoskeptomai2535

3 жыл бұрын

@@shootingstar5039 So what do you think of my original post? Do you think I am justified in my position of atheism?

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

@@theoskeptomai2535 Thank you so much for your question! This is the first in a series of videos. In each video, we will focus on one small point. In this video, we demonstrated the existence of a necessary being from the contingency of the universe. I would love to hear your engagement with the actual argument that was presented.

@theoskeptomai2535

3 жыл бұрын

@@BasiraEducation No. You actually did not demonstrate the existence of a necessary being. A phenomenon is not contingent upon "another" phenomenon but a multitude of unfathomable number of physical factors. Phenomena do not have linear trails of preceding contingencies as if they toppled over like a series of dominos. That is not how phenomena emerge. The universe is an eternal realm in which all phenomena emerge. And energy is the sources of all phenomena. The need be no fictional deity involved.

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

@@theoskeptomai2535 All the physical factors that you mention in your response are contingent. That is why whenever we find a physical factor that explains something, we search for the scientific explanation of that physical factor, too. If that physical factor weren't contingent, we wouldn't search for a scientific explanation but would simply accept it as a "brute fact". Saying that anything in the universe is a "brute fact" closes the door to scientific inquiry. Scientific inquiry assumes that everything - all the physical factors that you mention - are contingent. That's the basis of the argument in the video. God bless.

You can't "mistake" something that isn't proven to exist.

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

The video proves His existence. I would love to hear you engage with the arguments in the video. God bless.

@TheRealCatof

3 жыл бұрын

@@BasiraEducation If your video proved the existence of a god, you would be famous. You need to get over yourself. Try providing evidence, maybe you'll actually prove your god then. Flying Spaghetti Monster Bless you too!

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheRealCatof You are making the following argument: If your argument is correct, then everyone would have accepted it and given you accolades Everyone has not accepted you and given you accolades Therefore your argument is not correct This argument is flawed because the first premise is false. The way to evaluate the truth or falsehood of an argument is to engage with its premises and explain where exactly they went wrong (if they did). I would love to hear your critique of something specific that was said in the video. God bless.

@TheRealCatof

3 жыл бұрын

@@BasiraEducation The word proof only has one definition. Regardless of if everyone accepted something. The perfect example is Darwin and Evolution.

Please Show me your God ?

@BasiraEducation

2 жыл бұрын

He is not physically seen in this life, but we can infer his existence using the argument in this episode. This is similar in some respects to the fact that we cannot see atoms but we can infer their existence.

@Bugsy0333

2 жыл бұрын

@Basira Education Not true. The very powerful microscopes are called atomic force microscopes, because they can see things by the forces between atoms. So with an atomic force microscope you can see things as small as a strand of DNA or even individual atoms. Can an atomic Force microscopy see your God ? Ah No.

@BasiraEducation

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bugsy0333We cannot see something that is smaller than the wavelength of light in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Atoms fall in this category. What we see are representations that are based on empirical inferences. God bless.

@Bugsy0333

2 жыл бұрын

@@BasiraEducation The scientific method is a procedure that relies on observation and empirical evidence. It is a procedure that has resulted in many concrete discoveries that have explained how many things in the universe (including here on Earth) work. It is also the basis for countless discoveries and inventions that have enriched human life. Something theism has never done in any practical way. Fact vs. mumbo jumbo. One doesn’t worship the use of empirical evidence. One relies on it as a basis for determining which hypotheses have the highest probability of being true subject to ongoing scrutiny and revision as necessary.

I don't understand why you are CHARGING A FEE for teaching how to spread Islam? I would recommend people to watch videos of Sheikh Ahmed Deedat and Dr. Zakir Naik. FREE.

hi _belief in god is like a belief in a fairytale._ now let me summarise the islam fairytale. there is a god who cannot even supervise his book, so he needs mohamed... next fairytale about a god, who cannot prevent humans from spreading fairytales.

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your comment! We presented a rational argument in the video and would love to hear you engage with that. God bless.

@iwilldi

3 жыл бұрын

@@BasiraEducation you claim that belief in god is like belief in a scientific fact. no it isn't. all you try to do is exploiting ignorance. others before you have failed miserably in this. so what about islam and its hilarious claims about a god, who cannot keep his revelation straight?

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

@@iwilldi Thanks for sharing your thoughts. God bless!

☪️ancer

Heres the problem I have, The entirety of Islam is based on what People “Claim” they memorized, and or isnod chains. Again no way to prove this, it’s just a claim. I do respect Islam and Muhammad PBUH. I have read the Quran cover to cover going on 3 times now, I have studied many Hadiths. I do think the Quran has many many beautiful sayings in it, I do NOT believe it to be the word of GOD. I like to say GALATIANS 1:8-9…says it all right there. Lets get back to the Quran the Quran has no manuscripts all the manuscripts were soaked in vinegar and destroyed when Abu Bakr and Usman wrote the Quran they had all manuscripts destroyed even if it had one letter on it it had to be destroyed well if this was the word of God then why would you destroy it if this was the word of God why wouldn’t you keep those manuscripts for the world to see and study if this was the word of God why would you destroy any of it this is the problem that I have. You here Muslims say all the time look at the Quran not one thing is changed not one word not one punctuation mark it is all the same well that’s because Abu Bakr and Usman wrote the Quran it’s a 100% controlled text so of course it’s all the same when you look at Christianity there are mistakes but they don’t hide any of their mistakes they make it available for the whole world to see humans wrote the Bible so of course there are mistakes but the one thing that Christians have done that Muslims didn’t is Christians did their best to save all of their manuscripts whether there are mistakes or not they saved all of them they had nothing to hide why because the Bible is the true word of God so they have nothing to hide it’s from God why would they hide it this is why I don’t understand Islam if it was from God why would you destroy everything if it was truly from God why would you rewrite it according to man why would you make a control text this doesn’t make sense and the more and more Muslims that study for themselves and find the south sadly they leave Islam you have over 25% of the youth today that have left Islam you have over 100,000 Muslims every other month that are leaving is lime not anything bad it’s solely because they are able to search and study for themselves and find the truth. I do not hate Muslims I do not hate Islam I love every Muslim on the face of this earth and I want every Muslim to do with their heart tells them to if you feel that God tells you that Islam is where you need to be then God bless you go in peace and in the Muslim all I’m telling you is study look for the truth ask the questions that that people don’t want to ask don’t just say the things that you’ve been told since you were a child you’re giving your life to this your soul ask questions study just like another thing in in Islam it says that there is an angel on your left shoulder and an angel on your Rachel God is is Omni presence God is perfect and flawless in every way why does he need an angel on your shoulder if God wants to see every second of your entire life all he does is speak it and it is there are many many things that I disagree with in Islam but the Quran does have some of the most beautiful words I have ever read in my life truly again I don’t hate Islam or Muslims I love you but use the brains that God has given you and bless you with ask those hard questions and seek the truth. May God bless you keep you safe and shower you with peace and blessings.

@BasiraEducation

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for your comment! This video is about the argument for God's existence from the contingency of the universe and it's not about proving Islam true. This is an argument that people of many different faiths can (and do) agree on. Thank you for your open-mindedness and respect for Islam and Muslims. I have he same open-mindedness and respect for you! I discuss the preservation of the Quran in other videos on this channel.

An all powerful God wouldn't need to hold up the Universe

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

That's right, He doesn't need to keep the universe in existence. God bless.

@paulmartin1441

3 жыл бұрын

But you have God holding up a row of dominoes

@shootingstar5039

3 жыл бұрын

@@paulmartin1441 Good point. He didn't need to make the dominoes exist in the first place. The dominoes only remain standing because they are leaning on something that holds itself up and does not need anything else to hold it up, in other words, self sufficient, or in the technical term, necessary. The fact that the dominoes exist is evidence of something at the end of the line that holds itself and everything else up. (If not, the dominoes would be lying flat on the ground) In the same way, the universe only exists by depending on a necessary being.

@paulmartin1441

3 жыл бұрын

@@shootingstar5039 well the fact that the dominoes exist could also show an imperfect God with limitations , a God that has to rely on balance and precaution is not an all powerful God

@shootingstar5039

3 жыл бұрын

@@paulmartin1441 The dominoes were used as an analogy simply to illustrate the nature of the dependency of things in the universe: how they all need something non-dependent to depend on, and how none of them have the individual capability to hold any other ones up. The point was not to say that the universe and everything in it was stacked exactly like a line of dominoes in every way, shape, and form.

Not again... Philosophical words salad for contingency,kalam,name em all, still dont solve the big problem : EVIDENCE

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

The word "kalam" wasn't mentioned in the video at all, but the word "contingency" was. "Contingency" means "dependency", which is an easy-to-understand concept, and it is evidence for the existence of a necessary being, as explained in the video. God bless.

@freeyourmind7538

3 жыл бұрын

Evidence: everything is contingent, right? Can you name anything that popped into existence by itself? A table, a chair, a building, a toothbrush, sock....anything? If not, then this is enough evidence for a necessary being, right?

@emkfenboi

3 жыл бұрын

Define "EVIDENCE"

@icangbelang527

3 жыл бұрын

@@BasiraEducation no evidence presented, you presented claims

@icangbelang527

3 жыл бұрын

@@emkfenboi u can use google for that

When will you post the episode proving the existence of the Gog and Magog? 😂 You won't because the Gog and Magog don't exist, therefore, the Koran is in error. If the Koran has just when error in it, then it is false. It's false.

Is your stance that a thought actually represents something in reality? Example, I want you to picture in your mind: a purple elephant with horns that is wearing a pink tutu, will refer to it as PEHPT for rest of comment. Does that PEHPT now exist somewhere out in the universe as a physical being? OR is the PEHPT just a concept that you have created in your brain? Now, lets say someone were to assert that a PEHPT does exist and that it is actually a necessary being that created the universe as it is all powerful and all knowing being that exists outside of space and time. Would you need evidence of it's existence beyond that concept in your mind? Or would you just accept the claim at face value? So, try a little experiment. Use a little bit of your rationality to see it from another perspective for a moment. Take a day or two and just substitute PEHPT for allah in every single one of your arguments and claims. But I am going to make a testable prediction: You won't. You will either avoid my comment or come back with some poor strawman version of what I asked you to do in order to do some mental gymnastics to avoid the problem with using philosophy to prove something exists.

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

No, a thought in the mind doesn't not automatically represent something in reality. That would be like believing in a fairytale! :) In order for something to exist in reality, its existence needs to be demonstrated based on evidence. The video provided evidence for the existence of a necessary being. Would love to hear you engage with the argument that was presented. God bless.

@AnotherViewer

3 жыл бұрын

@@BasiraEducation So you are claiming the universe is contingent; presumably because people, planets and galaxies are contingent. But people, planets and galaxies aren’t fundamental. Things like sub-atomic particles, or superstrings, or quantum fields are fundamental. If such things are contingent, the universe is contingent. Are they contingent? Nobody knows. Are you assuming the universe is contingent without any evidence? Are you claiming God is a necessary being, in other words: “a being which exists by a necessity of its own nature?" You have no evidence God exists necessarily; you just assume it. That means you assume God’s “non-existence is impossible.” And that means you assume God exists. To sum up, you are using a mixture of circular reasoning and special pleading fallacies.

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

@@AnotherViewer The contingency of the universe - right down to sub-atomic particles - is not just a claim; it's a fact. That is why scientists investigate reasons for their properties. If anything in the universe were not contingent, it would be a "brute fact" and beyond the investigation of science. No one accepts that. The inference from the existence of the contingent universe to the existence of a non-contingent being (that's what we mean by necessary in the video) is a sound logical inference, not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is to say that the contingent universe was made by itself, which is what someone who doesn't believe in the existence of a necessary being would say. God bless.

@AnotherViewer

3 жыл бұрын

@@BasiraEducation If the first cause can be thought to be uncaused and a necessary being existing forever, then why not consider that the universe itself has always existed and shall always exist and go through a never ending cycle of expansion and contraction and then expansion (big bang) again and again! If there is to be a deity that is the exception from the requirement that all existing things need a cause then the same exception can be made for the sum of all energy that exists, considering that it manifests in different forms. Victor John Stenger who was an American particle physicist and philosopher said this: "In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10^-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe. The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself. As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang. The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design. The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. "

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

@@AnotherViewer The argument in the video is not a first-cause argument. In a first-cause argument, you need someone to push the first domino. This is a different argument. it's an argument for the impossibility of an infinite regress of dependencies - the dominoes are leaning on something, not being pushed by something. If we accept that the universe is contingent (as the argument states), then it is a contradiction to say that the universe doesn't need anything to make it exist. The whole point of the argument is that the universe needs something to make it exist. That means that there is something beyond the universe that doesn't need anything to make it exist. That is the necessary being. God bless.

"This video is part of “The Thinking Muslim’s Guide to Atheist Arguments.” ???? There are no atheist arguments. here's how it actually works. 1) People can claim a god exists ( Muslim, Christians, Sikh, Hindu, whatever) 2) An atheist will say "show me evidence to prove that claim". Asking a person to prove what they claim isn't an argument, so there is no atheist argument needed. 3) So far, no follower of any religion has presented any evidence for any god.

@abdel-minemmustafa1651

3 жыл бұрын

Did you watch the video?

@cnault3244

3 жыл бұрын

@@abdel-minemmustafa1651 No need to. The video is claimed to be part of “The Thinking Muslim’s Guide to Atheist Arguments.” That claim already shows that the video is wrong. There is not an atheist argument. If someone claims a god exists, the atheist response is to ignore the claim or to ask the person to present evidence to prove their claim. Asking someone to prove their claim is not an argument. Can you present evidence for the existence of a god?

@abdel-minemmustafa1651

3 жыл бұрын

@@cnault3244 then perhaps you should read atheist literature, which would not exist had there been no argument for an atheist to make. One method of rebuttal to a claim is to demand proof. Sure. Another is to present a parallel counter argument, where you propose the antithesis to the claim of the opponent with your own argument to support it. So either you have only been exposed to one method of rejecting God, or you're playing dumb and sounding smart. If you watch this video, or the rest of the videos in this series, you will see that there is indeed evidence of God's existence. And this is only a logical method of proving it. There are many more ways to do so, and I hope an actual human being in real life gets the opportunity to speak to you about them one day. Praying for the best for us both.

@cnault3244

3 жыл бұрын

@@abdel-minemmustafa1651 "perhaps you should read atheist literature, which would not exist had there been no argument for an atheist to make. " Atheists don't write books of arguments for why atheism is the better position. They write books that point out the flaws in every argument presented by theists.... and the long list of atrocities carried out in the name of religions. Atheists are still waiting for theists to present their evidence for the existence of a god. "f you watch this video, or the rest of the videos in this series, you will see that there is indeed evidence of God's existence." I watched the video. There was no evidence presented for a god. It was just some of the same old arguments that are only convincing for people who already believe a god exists.

This video makes absolutely no sense! Please prove that God is not contingent on anything and can exist in a vacuum. Please prove that the existence of the universe depends on a non-contingent being.

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

The proof that God is not contingent on anything is that if He was contingent on something, then nothing else that is contingent (i.e., the universe) would exist. That was illustrated in the video with the dominoes example. I don't understand the relation of God existing in a vacuum (He doesn't) to this point. God bless.

@ramigilneas9274

3 жыл бұрын

Of course God can’t be contingent on anything because if he was then he couldn’t be the creator of everything. Yes, the argument really is that silly.😂

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

@@ramigilneas9274 That is, indeed a silly argument. It's circular, in fact. But that is a misrepresentation of the argument. The way that the argument goes is like this: God can't be contingent on anything because if he was then nothing contingent would exist. That is not a circular argument. God bless.

Lol! Your evidence for your god is "it's in a book and the book tells me so!"

@aussieatheist960

3 жыл бұрын

@@shootingstar5039 but he still gives no evidence for a god. It basically comes down to " I don't know so *insert creator here*" followed by "my book tells me so". Any religion could use the same argument to to "prove" that their god/s are the real god. "I don't know what make the nuclear fusion that causes the sun to be hot which causes the wind on earth so it has to be the one and only Flying Spaghetti Monster because what else could it be?"

@Abdul-xq3cf

3 жыл бұрын

@@aussieatheist960 no, he clearly explain why is it the opposite of what you understand, but because you want only a scientific evidence, your intellect is trapped at a very low level.

@Abdul-xq3cf

3 жыл бұрын

@@aussieatheist960 it’s not « I don’t know therefor god », I mean you should really be a stupid person if you understand this of the video..

@RayyanMemonTheJoker

3 жыл бұрын

These are quite bad faith arguments lol You can't reduce his argument to "the Quran said so". Neither did he make the first cause, or kalaam cosmological argument either... when one truly understands the argument from dependency, you'll find how atheists aren't skeptical *enough*.

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

@@RayyanMemonTheJoker Thank you for your comments! The video makes this argument. Can you tell me which premise you disagree with and why? If you accept the premises, you must accept the conclusion. Premise 1: Everything in the universe exists contingently. Premise 2: Everything that exists contingently needs a necessary being to exist. Conclusion: The universe needs a necessary being to exist. Have a great day!

I'm playing devil's advocate here. Is GODa contingent to something else?

Arguments are not sufficient evidence for anything

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

Can you prove to me (or anyone) that the statement that you have made is true?

@TalentMthiyane

3 жыл бұрын

@@BasiraEducation why yes, do sound arguments always produce certainty?

@BasiraEducation

3 жыл бұрын

​@@TalentMthiyane You initially said that no argument can prove anything. That is a statement of the form, "No A is B." Such statements are very difficult to prove, and perhaps impossible to prove if you believe that no argument can prove anything. That was the idea that I was trying to convey with my question. The question that you are now asking is whether sound arguments always produce certainty. The answer to that is no, they don't always produce certainty. But that it doesn't follow from that that they don't sometimes produce certainty. For example, the argument that is presented in the video does produce certainty in the existence of a necessary being.

@TalentMthiyane

3 жыл бұрын

@@BasiraEducation I didn't say that but lets move on.... What's the difference between arguments that produce certainty and those that do not assuming both are sound?

@TalentMthiyane

3 жыл бұрын

@@BasiraEducation Anyway you prove my initial statement true, if you agree that arguments don't always produce certainty then arguments are not sufficient evidence to prove anything.

You left out the part where you were going to provide evidence.

This is an old argument that carries no weight. At best, this is a philosophical argument for 'a' god, but not your god in particular. This assertion is In no way proof for an actual god. I would put your argument in the special pleading camp. I'm sure infinite regress will be in there somewhere as well and how it just has to be a god at the end. That just doesn't cut it. I know you can only assert your god into existence. It's all any faith based belief has ever brought to the table. Thanks for trying and thanks for sharing though, it's appreciated.

@YusufMullan

3 жыл бұрын

You're half right. This part is right: "this is a philosophical argument for 'a' god, but not your god in particular." You're right about this. It is a logical argument for a "necessary something" that all the contingent things in the universe depend on. And it is a compelling one at that. The fact that this necessary something is actually OUR God, needs to be proven and that will be done in the next videos. You said "at best". Why is it that you feel the argument made in the video might not be leading to its conclusion of a necessary being, or that it's not incontrovertible and conclusive?

@ZenWithKen

3 жыл бұрын

@@YusufMullan I’m sure you’re aware of the other comments put forth on what baggage ‘necessary’ brings to the table. Regardless of there being a necessary cause or not to the universe, it’s special pleading to say it is a god. The simple fact is nobody knows how or why the universe is here and I think you know that.

@YusufMullan

3 жыл бұрын

@@ZenWithKen I don't care about other comments. There is a necessary something beyond the universe and that much is _proven_. You seem doubtful about this and yet refuse to engage the argument in the video?

@icanfartloud

3 жыл бұрын

@@ZenWithKen you need to study at least some logic in college... "The simple fact is nobody knows how or why the universe is here and I think you know that.".... This assertion means you're an authority, which is self-defeating, on how or why the universe is here, Else how could YOU KNOW nobody knows? You can't use absolute language like "nobody", it makes for an argument from omniscience fallacy.

@ZenWithKen

3 жыл бұрын

@@YusufMullan My apologies, I should have addressed the video. I equate gods to a fairy tales because I view both as man made stories. The comparison isn't to belittle the faith based belief, it is to show that I view them as the same thing. As for your comment that there is a necessary being, I disagree. Even if I accept the premise that there is a necessary thing, it must be proven that it is a god. This is no different then the Christian approach to asserting their god into existence. You both can't be right, but you both can be wrong. Either manifest your god so it can be questioned, or at least build a machine that can detect it. Till then, I'll can't believe in any gods due to lack of evidence.

If you search God as in Abrahamic religions ; all prophets including Mohammad are fictional characters. Quran is copy of some Christian sect who also believed that Jesus was not crucified. It is proven beyond any doubt that Torah which is quoted extensively in Quran was written by those Jews in exile in Babylon. This text was continuously updated by various scribes.

Mashallah