Response to Cosmic Skeptic part 1 - Evolutionary Moral Realism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- Don't forget to Like, Comment, Subscribe and Share for more content inshaAllah.
Email: darwiniandelusions@gmail.com
Facebook: / subboor.ahmad
Twitter: / subboor18
Instagram: www.instagram....
I'm a Christian who watches your videos against Darwinism, and I've also watched quite a few Christian videos about atheistic youtubers. I remember hearing that a popular atheist-turned-Christian, a writer named C.S. Lewis, once said that he knew that his moral objections to God were impossible under atheism and that this bothered him back when he was still an atheist. That's where the problem lies: if atheists reason logically about atheism, then they lose their #1 complaint, and I reckon that they refuse to see this because they simply don't want to lose that complaint. I also vaguely remember that CosmicSkeptic contradicts himself across various videos and talks: at one time he'll argue as if morality is objective, and at another time you'll find him arguing that morality is subjective (Perhaps atheists argue that morality is objective when they're on the offensive, whereas the argue that morality is subjective when they're on the defensive). I say confidently that I've never seen a youtube atheist who doesn't get about every single thing wrong in about every single video: it's as if they believe that being an atheist is evidence that they must be the smartest person in any given room, because a kind of arrogance is always overly present in their videos, and their arrogance may be what prevents them from realizing that they can't "debunk" longstanding arguments.
No disrespect brother, but todays Christianity is almost as unlogical as Atheism. Please study it with a pure open heart, and tell me again its the true religion of God. May God guide you and me to the truth
Thank you for your comment
@@SubboorAhmadAbbasi You're welcome.
Sabboor delusions. How come you never thank me for my comments?😪
Cosmicskeptic believes that morality is subjective (though he does occasionally change his mind when he comes across new evidence or more convincing arguments, as any good scientist or philospher should).
Alex seriously needs Hidayah (Guidance) as much as that Rooster needs a Hen.
Loved it so much ...
don't talk like that
We also need that much hidayah and even more!
May Allah guide all of us and make guidance easy for us
I'm pretty sure a rooster doesn't need a hen
you sir... have won the internet.
So arrogant when u realize he didn't even bother to check. I've realized this as well with his Islam debunked video and I exposed him in the comments because he literally used Wikipedia articles with references that disprove his claim... He is the epitome of laziness
Which one ?
@@ga4214 I guess liberal hypocrisy of Islam or why atheists don't believe in Islam
@@reembagadi7875 thanks 🙏
Skeptic thinks he is more intelligent than he is actually. His face shows it.
@@hanifsoul No, I wouldn't give him that satisfaction, brother remember one thing, arrogance stems from deeply rooted insecurity.
Deep down he knows he is not all that intelligent, but I wouldn't smack him just because he is a brat.
In fact by doing so it's like he is worth it lol
Lol "religion of peace" 😂😂
@@person10
religion will kill itself.
Too many people can not accept the immorality contained in these fabricated books as being from some, supposedly, just god.
@@lewis72
1) Islam is growing bro, at a faster than Atheism so on what basis are you making your claims?
2) You mentioned "Immorality" when referring to the Scriptures, yet Athiesm cannot justify morality at all. How can you even mention morality when your ideology cannot determine what is right and what is wrong objectively without contradicting yourself?
May Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’ala) guide you brother :)
@@lewis72 you are talking about morality? Lol
Bro I’ve watched many of Alex videos and this isn’t the first time he’s made so many blunders
And his knowledge really got exposed by brother Hijab and Abdullah in that Oxford debate
Honestly all these so called big time atheists like Dawkins and Harris and the likes of Alex and Aaron Ra are quite frankly a joke and it’s really sad
Alhamdulilah for Islam and may Allah bless you brother Subboor
Well..hijab is a joke...lol..open your mind and watch the debate with brain..not with biases...hijab always use cheap way to corner his opponent..he twists their word..
Sam's Studio
Go rewatch Alex’s debate vs the Christian on the contengincy argument, Alex accepts the universe as a necessary existence as he admits that a neccessary existence must be in order for all existence to be in place, he followed the lines of Bertrand Russell with that type of rebuttal
But what he failed to realize is that he believes the universe began and is not eternal, and the only reason Bertrand Russell declares the universe as being the necessary existence was because he believed the universe to be eternal
But in Alex case he can’t make such a claim as by definition for a proposition to be necessary it must be eternal, Hijab was just pointing out the inconsistencies in his argument and his ignorance in philosophy
Go to Epistemix TH-cam channel where Hijab responds to Alex using evidence from the video, and you’ll see who actually misrepresented who
Sam's Studio
And you it seems like must open your mind and stop being biased because I actually went back and checked the references Hijab gave, you should too
Just because Alex claimed Hijab misrepresented him doesn’t mean it’s true, as atheists always to there audience make positive claims about atheism but in debates they switch up to make negative claims and act passive
Please go fact check and actually watch the debates which were referenced
@@mohammadhdiebi3249 hijab also made arrogant fake argument with david wood debate..
@@mohammadhdiebi3249 i watched his video..he edited the video...alex couldnt explain his point..what he meant by necessary existence and hijab forced his point and meaning.. When alex never meant it...also add some talks what alex never said..what type of debate is this...i have always followed mohammad hijab...i have always found this man arrogant... I dont trust a persons intelligence when he read the quran and still believe in it when it has some silly philosophical errors...
i'm here for the rooster
Alex ate him!
@@Basalat hahaha
I know I might seem off point here in the beginning but the larger picture of my point of view may seem pertinent to hopefully some atheist
It's incredibly arduous how people do not consider knowledge to Beginnings!
The point is not just before the creation of sperm and egg, which exist in two different bodies, do these entities (sperm and egg) consider themselves to be the ultimate form in the cycle of creation?
And once the egg and sperm unite, the existence that comes into being, does that entity consider it self to be the total sum of its existence of its self?
And when it further transforms into a foetus and lives within the womb, would it be correct for that foetus to reject the fact that there is another existence of which it has no verifiable knowledge or proof of within the womb!
Why do these atheist become so arrogant and reject that there is another existence that awaits which we might not have physical proof of!
Atheist are one of the most closed minded people who are most arrogant about having the misconception of being able to have a wider understand
Thank you brother Subboor for the amazing work you do for Islam.
May Allah (SWT) bless you abundantly for your efforts
Voice of the rooster is a good thing bro, particularly early in the morning.
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (saaws) as saying: "When you listen to the crowing of the cock, ask Allah for His favour as it sees Angels and when you listen to the braying of the donkey, seek refuge in Allah from the Satan for it sees Satan." -- Sahih Muslim 2729
I must say that i like the way you make your videos recently (in an open space) it makes me feel very comfortable and it gives me more focus, i personally think the animal sounds fit in perfectly :) BarakAllahu feek
I only watched one of his videos a while back he is not all that interesting, he likes to give the impression that he knows what he is talking about.
I see him like a big rebellious little boy with a bottled in anger.
He doesn't realise that one of his high priests Hitchens actually conceded to several things where i.e the explanation of the universe and morality.
So did his other high priest Richard Dawkins.
DUDE! You called him big and little in the same phrase.
Salaam alaikum brother Subboor.
Alex O Connell actually believes in Determinism, which basically means he believes everything in existence and all happenings that have occurred are due to a chain of events, like the dominoes effect. Therefore he doesn't actually believe humans have any free-will when choosing their actions. And he himself admits that if you do not consciously choose to do something, you cannot be held morally accountable for it. But since he believes humans do not have any free will, that basically means he doesn't believe humans can be morally held accountable for anything they do. In other words, he doesn't actually believe in the concept of morality. Alex O Connor is as morally bankrupt as they come. It would have been better for him not to respond to you😆
Excellent point
Humans can be morally responsibile for what they do..even if they dont have free will but not in that sense.. Like praise, Punishment are determinants subtances..When we punish a person,praise a person for his work..the way that person and other person think changes...so the person dont choose what they want to think ...its depends on society and genetics..so many factors..so free will dont exist..but it doesnt mean we cant punish or praise a person..cuz thats how it works...
@@samsstudio6283 Your arguments do not make sense. How can humans be morally responsible for what they do, if, as you claim,
they are not consciously making their own choices( no free-will)??? Let me use a simple example to demonstrate what I mean. Advanced computers today can do many things, including having conversations with humans. Humans can interact with them and make them change their thought process or CPU process. So would you hold computers morally responsible for what they do?? Of course you wouldn't, because you know that the computer is not really conscious of anything that it does or says. An automated machine gun that tracks and shoots anything within its range, is not held accountable for killing innocent bystanders by mistake. It is not held morally accountable for the people it kills because it is a machine that has no conscience or free will. It is simply reacting to it's surroundings and it's programming.
@@gajiburrahman7378 you didnt understood what I meant by morally responsible...Free will means We dont have the choice to choose what we want...i dont think believing in frer will or determinism is necessary...but if a person thinks that he doesnt have free will. So he can do whatever he wants..thats not right...whether we have free will or not..we still have to praise or blame a person and hold responsible for his actions..cuz thats how it works...When we blame and held responsible a person for his actions he might get his mistake and act accordingly to it...when we apprrciate a person for his work he may be get the stimuli of joy, satisfaction..so praise and blaming someone is also act as determinents...Its like cause and effects..
@@samsstudio6283 You are basically saying that we should punish and reward people in order to control their behaviour, OK. But that is not the same thing as holding someone morally accountable, because morality is about right or wrong, good or evil. If people have no free-will, and do things without intent, then how can you say they did evil or good?? If nobody chose to do those good or evil acts, how can you hold them morally accountable??? Wouldn't that be unfair. For example, if someone took over my body and made me do all sorts of bad things, should I be held morally accountable? Of course not. In the same way, people who believe in determinism are basically saying that we are not actually in control of our own mind and body, but rather it is controlled or determined by a chain of events outside of our control.
1 dislike is from alex
Lol
2nd by his bff.
May Allah bless you, brother Suboor
Ameen
Ameen.
Alex is right.... Natural selection was never an explanation of the ontology of human rights, morals, math, etc. Asking natural selection to explain morality is like asking Allah to explain how why 1+1=2; there’s no correlation.
Alex also said that nobody was arguing for evolution as an explanation for moral ontology, but that was an unfortunately foolish thing to say. Never say nobody is arguing for X, because no matter what X may be, there will always be someone arguing for it.
Ansatz66 Okay, sure you can say that. People (if any) who uses evolution as an argument for moral ontology, they are wrong.... but the point is that Alex, along with MOST atheists, is that using evolution as an argument for moral ontology is incorrect. Atheists simply don’t use that. Morals are morals and morality is morality.
@@MusicFoRealz Until you read the evolutionary moral realist arguments you can't assume they are wrong.
I personally think that Alex making the mistake that people do not argue for evolutionary moral realism isn't a big deal and is being used as a distraction. Alex has his own arguments for descriptive morality, that should be the focus, not him being unaware of a particular position that isn't being debated over.
Alex says it later in the video that we can get a idea of how are morality evolved from natural selection but natural selection doesnt explain moral ontology..thats true...you edited the video.
1:04 - 1:14
Moral Ontology is not *justification* of morals, neither are Moral Realism and Moral Ontology synonymous.
1:19 - 1:35
Alex, as you say, made a big mistake because you didn't provide explanations or references, and that makes you glad?
What was the point of asserting in the first place that natural selection doesn't explain the ontological existence of morality or that it explains it away when you were convinced that the publications indeed made a case for moral ontology based on natural selection?
Why the face-palm when Alex says it (natural selection) doesn't prove or disprove moral ontology? Do you have a reason to believe natural selection proves or disproves moral ontology?
So let me see if I have this straight? You find a handful of papers to debunk cosmicskeptic and you think you've hit a homerun. Yet you ignore the fact that there are thousands of papers on evolution yet you pass those off as opinion. What a monumental hypocrite. And by the way, it's the religious community that call their followers "flock" so I think you're a bit confused about the sheep thing.
no its not just home run, it just a part one smash make your boy tapping.
hmmm, why need check all thousands of paper that just same align argumen to naturalist,
rather just double check the main core of darwinian?.
flock is everywhere, event if you subscribe something because many of crowd click like it and ignore the ignoring papers.
If a non believer do good in this life . He will be given his reward in this life by God and their will no good deeds for him in the life hereafter if he die as a disbeliever. but if a believer do good there will be reward for him in the life here and hereafter. And about how do you know one religion is right or wrong by testing it and by using your rationals. God has given humans the ability to thing and ponder that no other creature has there is no creature like humans. Name a creature that have tough like humans that have innumerable sounds and can speak thousands of languages, or who can stand upright on two feet like humans even apes use their hands to walk which are more like feet than hands. that wear honorable cloths and cover its private part. who have hands like us and can use tools and who have amazing intellect like us. who have complex emotions and complex life like us. Evolution can be the process using which God has made life .But it the process control by God and just because you know the recipe of cake it doesn't mean the baker doesn't exist.
It will be stupid to say we have no meaning. surely their is a creator and surely he has guided people of all ages with his prophets and messengers .that why we have so many religions because people corrupted those messages and than God sent another Prophet to remind the people to show them the purpose and the right way. Allah said in the Quran that he will not punish anyone unless he has show them the his signs that this is the truth. one should find and test the truth. life is a test just like you can't expect to pass an exam without preparing it .you can not expect to get the truth without doing effort for it.
Science can never proof the existence of God. it the knowledge that is gain through experimentation and observation. you can do experiment in lab to prove . It does not require evidence to believe in something to be true. for example we don't do medical test to believe our mother is our actual biological mother. we have rational reasons to believe that she is. that my mother is always with me and she always take care of me.So logic says she is my Actual mother .so is there are rational reason for the existence of God.
A person can only get the straight path if he wants the truth and ask for it(just like anything else in life). One should Sincerely ask for signs to God (like "God if you are there show me your signs" ) and test Core beliefs of religions .It is not hard in this day and age because of present technology. that is the reason why God has sent his Last and final messenger which I believe is Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). And his message is preserved till the end of time (which I believe is Qurran). unlike the previous Scriptures of Prophets and Messengers.So there is no need for more Prophet because God has promised to preserve Qurran till the last day .
So one not get the truth if he don't want it and is sincere.
@@cosmos0909 This is possibly the dumbest response I have ever heard for the existence of god.
@my name is my name by noone, cosmic means noone who knows what they are talking about
natural does not explain anything.
Yeah but they have tried to argue from natural perspective. Saying that they didn't argue at all? Is an ignorance as Alex did
You are part of nature ,you realise that 😂
@@mrjhavery6681 comone man he means natural selection
You’ve schooled him back to primary school.
جزاك الله خيرا
An amateur boxer want to have a fight in MMA ( Khabib). Obviously he will get knocked out in the first round. That’s what happened ladies and gentlemen! Looking forward for the 2nd round. Be easy on him brother Suboor.
سبور بھائی اللہ آپکو اور آپ کے خاندان کو اور وہ سارے لوگ جو اس کاوش میں آپکا ساتھ دے رہے ہیں سب کو دنیا آخرت کی کامیابی نصیب فرمائے۔
Aameen
Well done, it seems Alex doesn't know, well i doesn't expect anything from an ignorant person.
Skeptic is full of crap.
Cosmic Scraptic?
liked the clothing and the Pakol btw! of course, the video is great mashallah as always.
*_Sheepish Behaviour is an accurate description of Atheists._*
Don't you think it's a little bullheaded to lump all atheists in a group?
@@Topazdemonia true
But because they call theists as sheep followers and that they are free thinkers and open minded but in reality a lot ate not
I don't think thiests are dumb or sheep etc, and I'm athiest
@@Topazdemonia i said a lot
Nobody said u are
I'm aware
Now after your response if i was alex i would have said to you "Excuse me , i gotta go to pee"... n then you would never see me..coming back from washroom..🤣
he doesn't care if there is god or not or if there is he wouldn't do nothing he is just making money out of this nonsense on youtube.
Like the style 👍
بارك الله فيك
Salam, don't worry about the rooster. It didn't spoil the video in the slightest.
"If you want to know more about ontological truth and the study of morality then you study philosophy, not natural selection."
You in your own video admitted that the people talking about this were philosophers so you pretty much just proved his point. The theory of evolution on its own doesn't say anything about morality any more than the theory of gravity. No one looking at evolution from a purely scientific perspective claims that it has anything to say about morality. People have to apply philosophy to evolution to even begin asking moral questions in regards to it and that's what happening in those discussions you showed. What he said is pretty simple to understand but maybe you just don't want to have to admit that you were wrong.
I am never sureif I should be dissapointed in such a comment section as this one or if it is just funny. I guess both in the end
I was gloating for this, to be frank.
Yaar are you in Pakistan?
Subboor, that hat and shawl is siiiiick!!!
Dear sabir, I think the answer needs some more elaboration. Being a simpleton I also understand natural selection as only being related to how we developed biologically. Why does it need to explain any morality?
IF God does not exist, this means that EVERY aspect of our acts and behaviours stem from evolution (assuming evolution is how we got here in the first place).
Therefore, since humans act/behave based on a lot of factors, which includes morality, that morality MUST also stem from evolution.
Theists argue that "Evolution ---> Morality" does not make sense, since a lot of our morality seems to contradict "Survival of the FIttest"
So, IF morality does not promote "survival of the fittest" (ask any vegans WHY is it wrong to consume meat), where does morality comes from?
@@ibrahimx28 "Theists argue that 'Evolution ---> Morality' does not make sense, since a lot of our morality seems to contradict 'Survival of the Fittest'."
It's a very strange idea that morality would be contrary to survival. Why might a theist think that immoral societies would prosper while moral societies fail? It seems so obvious that if we treat each other fairly and support our communities then we will all be in a better situation as a result, while a society where everyone is selfish and violent will tend to tear itself apart and all will suffer.
To be clear, what we're talking about here is moral behavior, not moral ontology. It seems obvious that moral _behavior_ ought to be a great survival advantage, but that says nothing about why morality exists in the universe to be available as a survival strategy. Evolution promotes moral behavior, but it's strange that people are arguing for it as a source of moral ontology. Evolution gave birds the ability to fly, but it didn't create the concept of flight.
I'm not sure about these type of videos - religious vs non-belief or other beliefs - it's a pointless exercise, however it's a good way to make money on TH-cam! Whether left or right, the truth is somewhere in the middle!
You are not making any point. Showing that there are studies on the proposition does not mean the proposition is true Sir. There are also book written in homeopathy. That does not mean homeopathy is true. Alex's point remains unchallenged by you.
@my name is my name Who makes that claim?
Yo, my dude. Pendantic respones to pendantic respones aside. The point is moot, you can't prove moral objectivism, and as a theory it does less to explain the world than moral relativism so just toss, shrug your shoulders and square yourself to the reality of a diverse and shifting moral landscape.
Zajak-Allah brother..
Jazak-Allah Khair***
Got to love the jaded youth
As-Salaamu 'Alaykum.
I just wanted to offer an observation that you may benefit from. It seems that you and Alex are arguing past each other and discussing different things.
In your earlier videos, one of which Alex responded to, it seems that you essentially argue that given the entailments of the beliefs commonly held by atheists--at least in the West--, their claims to objective (i.e. true) morality are unjustified. Also, you seem to leave some relevant things to be assumed by the viewer. I believe that Alex may not have realized this and consequently responded to arguments different than the ones you essentially made. The main thing I thought was to be assumed was that you were not faulting atheists' beliefs for not addressing certain things, but instead atheists for claiming things unjustifiably.
In his video, he seems to essentially argue that atheists beliefs don't need to address what is beyond what they were intended to and that atheists can have a sufficient form of morality that need not necessarily be objective, essentially basing it on pain and pleasure--i.e. living in the most preferable way.
Good Explanation.
6:46 they look up to these high priests of atheism 👌🏼
One of the most interesting things about atheists is that some of them deny God because their opinion of Him is so high. And they ask, ‘how can I believe in a god that would allow a world like this?’ The real question is, what’s wrong with the people that Allah swt made with their free will? Why do they let these things happen? Because God has every right to ask us the same question. How can you rape a little child? I gave you reasoning, power, knoweldege, I gave you will, I gave you the ability to speak, the ability to control your appetites. And you do this? So that’s the real question. Its not ‘where is God?’ It’s ‘where’s the good will of the people that God created?’
People say God’s not listening to us, we’re not listening to God, people. He sent revelations, ‘don’t sow corruption in the earth; I gave you perfect mizan; I put a perfect balance in the world in order that you not transgress the balance.’ And now we know from ecology how all of the ecosystems are balanced; if you kill the spiders, the flies take over.
Is human free will to be blamed for the suffering of a zebra being mauled by a lioness?
Assuming u believe Allah is omniscient, omnipotent etc. it seems only logical that we dont have true free will as, being all knowing, Allah must know what we are going to do, meaning everything we do is predetermined. This also contradicts him being benevolent as it means he is punishing us for things that are in only his control as our actions, if he created us, were predetermined by him.
Very educated atheists do not know some simple basic concept on morality. Merely argue based on emotional
The person who is seeking the truth one evidence will be enough for him a person who is upon their desires a thousand evidence will not be clear exact words
I think both of you might be talking at cross purposes.
Alex the athiest do not know or even care to study nuance of morality. He shud be more careful on wht he has to comment abt things not within his expertise. Being an atheist does not grant you to talk above othrs willy nilly
Haha haha 😂 The Rooster 🐔
Can't believe I went to school with CosmicSkeptic 😂
Very nice
video editing skills will not make the content true.😆
love the attire.
What is it?
@@2manyusernamestaken548 It's a traditional afghan men's clothing. i forgot it's name. i think the wool hat is called pakool. And the woollen blanket is calledi think afghan paatu.
Suboor bhai still part 2 is not available when you will make part2
that should be out tonight iA
💪💪💪
O Bhai kab tak deny karo gay www.livescience.com/topics/evolution
Do you think we need divine permission to act humanly to each other?
What & how is an act deemed ‘humanly’ ?
@@Ihsaan1c humanly is not an objective guide for behaviour because some people are doing incest as they find it humanly act...,
@@Ihsaan1c What about stoning people for adultery and death for apostasy, are those moral?
@@Ihsaan1c so your point doesnt stand. The definition of humanly is subjective. Then how can you tell people to act humanly.
@@Ihsaan1c If you believe that morality is subjective, then everything is conventional or arbitrary. So you can't morally judge others based on what you believe as there will come moral relativism..
Nice hat
A muslim stating that an atheist can't believe in Human Rights.
- Oh, the irony.
From an atheist point of view, raping torturing and killing someone is not wrong 🤮 it is just turning useless atoms into other atoms
@@ga4214
"From an atheist point of view, raping torturing and killing someone is not wrong"
- How are you able to assert this ?
Tell me how slavery is wrong according to Islam or Chrisianity.
@@lewis72 since according to atheists we are but accident from the pointless universe, and rape is as ok as you could have evolved with 6 fingers in one hand instead of 5 !!
Learn your atheism bro 👌
Here about Islam and slavery: th-cam.com/video/OIB7-KqmOdA/w-d-xo.html
@@ga4214
I asked you to tell me how slavery is wrong according to Islam. I didn't say "post me a video that's an hour and 47 minutes long".
Show me the verse in the Quran that states that the Quran bans slavery.
1400 years ago, people didn't have access to TH-cam or that muppet in a shower cap.
Learn your Islam:
*Islam allows slavery and rape of sex slaves.*
th-cam.com/video/WjHB7DZke_c/w-d-xo.html
At what point did you think that admiring a wife beating, slave owning child rapist was a good idea ?
@@ga4214
How are you able to assess whether what your (false) god tells you is moral or not ?
جزاك الله خيرا
بارك الله فيك