Here is logical proof for the necessary existence of an uncaused Cause, why this uncaused cause necessarily is sentient, and why Islam is worth investigating: *Indisputable Claim:* _there are causes for effects._ To deny causality you prove causality because your skepticism is something caused. This claim is impossible to refute. *Question 1:* _So there are these causes for things that we discover. Will this causal chain of discovery go on forever or come to an end?_ *Question 2:* _Can this causal chain go on forever? Is it possible?_ No it's not possible. If the causal chain went on forever, we would not exist because the cause that caused our existence one hop before us on the causal chain would have to have first been caused. And that cause that caused us would have to be caused another hop away. And then that one another hop away. And then that one another hop away. And then that one another ho.... And considering we would not come to existence in an infinite causal chain, there *necessarily* must have been an uncaused cause; our existence is proof there must have been an uncaused cause. *Contention 1:* _what if everything arose from nothing?_ That would be impossible both logically and scientifically; if this were even a reasonable challenge, every scientific theory could be explained away with nothingness being the cause of any natural phenomena, which is absurd. *Contention 2:* _What if the uncaused cause is the universe; the universe could be eternal!_ The universe contains time, and if the universe were eternal there'd be an infinite history of past events; an infinite history of past events means we'd never reach the present, for the same reason an infinite causal chain would never lead to us being created. Before time could flow to the present, an infinite history must precede it and it could never precede it, because infinite doesn't end. All that's left is the uncaused cause. We've established that an uncaused cause is necessary because we exist, so now let's ask more questions: *Question 3:* _what are the necessary attributes this uncaused cause necessarily possesses, being an uncaused cause?_ This uncaused cause must be independent. Why? Because it originated everything and has no cause, so it's *necessarily* independent. The keyword is necessarily. Meaning an uncaused cause that isn't independent cannot be an uncaused cause. It must have possessed power due to the ability to produce the universe. Because it's independent, it *necessarily* doesn't depend on a power source, so its power is limitless. Now, with all the power in the world, it cannot produce a cup of coffee without the will to choose to make a cup of coffee or not to make a cup of coffee, meaning will is essential/necessary ingredient to produce things and power isn't enough. The ability to choose to do or choose not to do: we exist, so the uncaused cause *necessarily* requires a will to have chosen us to exist. In addition, because it's independent, the uncaused Cause's will is superior to the will of any other conscious beings. So if I will to board my plane and this uncaused Cause wills for me not to board my plane, I will not board my plane. Its will is necessarily independent of our will and is supreme over ours. It must have knowledge, which is required to make a choice. Some knowledge of the choices must be known in order to choose to do x or y or abstaining. Due to the *necessary* independence of this Uncaused Cause, it cannot depend on a source of knowledge which necessitates that its knowledge is limitless. *Contention 3:* _What if the Uncaused Cause is not sentient, but some sort of mechanical process, like a multiverse generator, that constantly generates universes at random and we're just one of those universes?_ This would be impossible because the Uncaused Cause must be something independent and a mechanical process, like the multiverse generator, cannot do other than what it's programmed or designed to do, which necessarily means it cannot be independent and impossible for it to be the Uncaused Cause. *Contention 4:* _The concept of Creator is impossible because the Creator cannot create something without time and causality is dependent on time._ I would challenge the claim that causality is dependent on time and say that time is actually dependent on causality. Reason being, time is the motion from past towards present/future, which means the present/future is caused by this motion, so to speak. If time is the parent and causality is its child, time must be independent of causality which it is not. In fact, causality seems to be an order of events and time is the motion between these events. To say it is impossible for a Creator to create because of time is akin to saying it's impossible for a Creator, with limitless power and knowledge, to give motion to motionless events, which is absurd. So far, we've deduced this uncaused cause must have absolute independence, necessarily have limitless power, limitless intelligence, and a will to choose. *Do you see why people believe now?* The only religion whose God is consistent with the logically deductible uncaused Cause is *Judaism* and *Islam.* There are no other religions that fit this criteria...
@Arfat Kar No I haven't but I disagree with the strength of his cosmological argument for the existence of a Creator. It relies on scientific theories, which is why it's not so strong. His other arguments are very strong though, in the book.
*Indisputable Claim: there are causes for effects.* Here, let me fix that: there are _known_ causes for _some_ effects. (For the moment I'll look past the highly equivocal words of "cause" and "effect.") *Question 1: So there are these causes for things that we discover. Will this causal chain of discovery go on forever or come to an end?* We don't know. We don't even know if this "chain" truly exists. *Question 2: Can this causal chain go on forever? Is it possible?* How is this a second question rather than a mere rephrasing of Q1? Other than the same answer to Q1, let me also add that we don't know how "possible" this is, since possibility is based on known factors and we don't have those. *Contention 1: what if everything arose from nothing? * Define "nothing" in some meaningful sense. Then define "arose" in some meaningful sense. Then define the connection between nothing and "everything" and possibly what you mean by "everything." *Contention 2: What if the uncaused cause is the universe; the universe could be eternal!* What is an uncaused cause? Also, do you mean, "What if the universe is an uncaused cause?" Because even that makes little sense, but makes more sense than what you asked. *All that's left is the uncaused cause. We've established that an uncaused cause is necessary because we exist, so now let's ask more questions:* But just because we exist does not mean there is an uncaused cause. *Question 3: what are the necessary attributes this uncaused cause necessarily possesses, being an uncaused cause?* We don't know. Nothing you have provided so far feeds into this question. *This uncaused cause must be independent. Why?* More like independent HOW? *It must have possessed power due to the ability to produce the universe. Because it's independent, it necessarily doesn't depend on a power source, so its power is limitless.* That doesn't follow. The necessary minimum requirement, assuming we can grant even this much (which we ought not do), is that this "uncaused cause" has _sufficient power_ to cause the universe (or more accurately, cause "us" since that was your requirement). Not unlimited power, sufficient. Just like I don't need unlimited power to throw a rock, just sufficient power to have the rock thrown. *Now, with all the power in the world,* See, already you kneecap yourself. This "uncaused cause" does not have "all the power in the world." It doesn't even have "all the power in the universe." It has... terminology that defies explanation. The _sufficient_ power in existence that pre-dates the universe. Not really the same zing is it? *The ability to choose to do or choose not to do: we exist, so the uncaused cause necessarily requires a will to have chosen us to exist.* Not true. We are flotsam, a by-product of the conditions of the universe. Any power that "caused" the universe to exist need not even be aware we would have existed within the universe. After all, even our own galaxy constitutes such a miniscule portion of the entire observable universe, there's no reason to think whatever existed before and outside of the universe would have any awareness of our (eventual) existence. That's assuming this uncaused cause is even aware. And that assumes this uncaused cause cares, could notice, and so on. None of which is justifiable from the premises we have so far. *So if I will to board my plane and this uncaused Cause wills for me not to board my plane, I will not board my plane.* That doesn't follow either. This "uncaused cause" need not have a will at all. Further there is no indication this uncaused cause even exists, let alone that it could interfere in what you do, nor that it would care to, nor that it would. So, NO PART of this is supportable. *It must have knowledge,* Nope. Again, at most all you have established thus far is that it _had_ (past tense) sufficient power to "cause" the universe to exist. Nothing more. No awareness and no knowledge. *Contention 4: The concept of Creator* You are now attempting to smuggle in "creator" when all you have in your previous premises is a "uncaused cause". *Reason being, time is the motion from past towards present/future,* No, it isn't. That's the entire nature of both relativity and basically how physics works. Time is a variable. Changes in time is what is relevant however. And it is only possible if time exists as a variable. If you do not have time then you cannot change, if you cannot change then you cannot "do" anything, least of all "cause" anything. Proposing something "outside" of time violates everything we know of how time works. And since you need time and causality for your first premise, if you seek to violate it now you are creating a fallacious case of special pleading. (Not, of course that I accepted your first premise either, but you need it and so your first premise is still a counter to your current one.) *So far, we've deduced this uncaused cause must have absolute independence, necessarily have limitless power, limitless intelligence, and a will to choose.* Not remotely. *Do you see why people believe now?* No, because even if I granted that there was a cause outside of the universe sufficient to create the universe, it still wouldn't get us to a god. *The only religion whose God is consistent with the logically deductible uncaused Cause is Judaism and Islam.* Nope. At minimum your god is the same "being" (if it exists) as the god of Christianity. Not to mention all the other creator-gods of all the other religions. Not to mention that your own holy texts (and that of Judaism) do not support the very specific thing you have claimed must be the case.
@@Tovec8 Thanks for responding to the post, Tovec. I'll respond to your point about sufficient cause vs unlimited power and why it must be the latter because this was probably the strongest of the arguments provided. You are right. If I throw a ball, I don't need unlimited power; I just need sufficient power to be able to throw the ball. Yet what about the cause of everything on the causal chain? It must be independent because it is Uncaused. We know it must be Uncaused because that is what my argument has proven, by logical necessity, due to our existence. If the Uncaused cause was dependent on a source of power to create, meaning it had finite power, you could argue the source of power is our cause of our existence, which means this "Uncaused cause" is not actually Uncaused, and that it could be this other source for power that possesses this necessary title. If you say none possess this title, then we would not exist because there'd be an infinite chain of finite creations depending on one another and we would never exist.
Atheism is basically someone who doesn’t believe in a god or any kind of god, it is a belief of people who don’t want to believe in anything, that’s what it basically is, spiritualism is the belief of what could be out there and not knowing that it is out there(like ghost, demons, magic, and feeling ones self connected to their inner spiritual self in a higher meaning, and everything that is spiritual) being agnostic is where someone believes that there is a god but not actually wanting to follow or worship any god.
QUESTION FOR HAMZA. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BEING OUTSIDE SPACE AND TIME ,INVISIBLE, DOES NOT MANIFEST IN REALITY IN ANY DETECTABLE WAY AND A NON EXISTENT DEITY
Fatram Fatram we have many signs to believe in a creator. You must understand about the kalam cosmological argument, the abrupt appearance in species in fossil records, the unlikelihood of cells forming by chance (virtually impossible) let alone survive to reproduce. It’s very argumentatively weak to assert that al the species that exist today in their complex systems stem from natural selection and “positive mutations” (which haven’t been shown to be true whatsoever). My job here is to warn you of being heedless. Richard Dawkins nor anyone will aid you in the day of judgement and you will be held accountable for trying to lie about the signs of the creator.
Fatram Fatram I’m only warning you because you are my fellow man. It makes no difference to me if you accept the message or not. I did my job. I’m not here to debate. For you is your beliefs, and for me are mine. If you have any genuine questions feel free to ask.
Can u tell about ur great great great great great great great great great grandpa or grandma grave location or bring out their DNA or their bones? ....that’s the answer to ur all questions ..... Thanks bye tc May Allah guide u and me .
Hamza, I don't know you (obviously). But you've changed so much in the last couple of years. So much more genuine and open to people, holding other beliefs, in a way that you were not. If your faith is stronger, then I'm really happy for you. (Yet I do sense that you have had to question a number of presuppositions relating to religion and irreligion). Sail strong, and I believe now you might be on your way to becoming a serious author.
@@alfonso201 I don't know which hole you might be referring to. Anyways, I know that no one cares what I might think. Same goes for everyone in the comment section as far as being irrelevant. That is not news. I'm just putting my views out there. All the best.
It is sad that you attempt to indict atheism, yet delete rebuttals by atheists...It speaks volumes to the fact protecting what you want to believe supersedes your need for truth.
Ow really? Why does that not shock me. I wonder how long my post will last. I honestly couldn't get through half of this video. It's guys claiming to know my mind better then I know it myself that really makes me detest religions and religious dogma.
Let the Quran Speak : Nothing to be sceptical of. A couple of viewers also commented that the original video had a faulty audio track! We don't remove critical comments and we appreciate your thoughts!
It's just ironic that atheist even bothered to come to a channel for religious people. You would only find this channel is if you're Muslim yourself or you, really, really... Depressed to debate. Like you sat their and just typed in and sat there clicking random Islamic videos to debate.
@Kuffar Legion that's actually pretty sad. Out of all the things you could be doing, you rather waste your time on this Earth to "mess" with us. You call us idiots and yet it's the other way around. Time is to short for that.
"Indisputable Claim: there are causes for effects." I dispute that claim, which you have made without evidence, and perhaps without knowing that science disagrees with you And you're also wrong in several of your following opinions. You really haven't thought this through, have you?
What is wrong with this guy? He is either ignorant or deliberately dishonest. He has had the definition of atheism explained to him many, many times, by some very renowned atheists, and he still refuses to understand the only meaning. How hard is it to open a dictionary?
Where is a palm face emoji when you need it? He is talking about the practical definition of atheism, not an academic one. He is basing his classification based on why people have decided to become atheists and not what atheism actually means as a philosophical stance. The talk was directed to a Muslim audience and not a general one. The point of it is to allow the enable the Muslim community to understand the trend of atheism from an Islamic point of view. Nothing more and nothing less.
He understands atheism better than atheists themselves. Hamza is being comprehensive and open minded here to understand that there are nuances to what atheism is as opposed to a definition that doesn't represent all atheists. I recommend you reading his book. No need to get offended. Life is short. Peace.
@@uchihazxe he is by no means comprehensive or open minded. Listen to his tone and read between the lines. This bloke has repeatedly misrepresented atheists. If he were to be fair or balanced in his arguments, then demonstrate examples of muslims explaining why they believe in their god and follow their religion. The definition of atheism represents all atheists otherwise, by definition, they are not atheists.
@@rjskeptic5273 You have an issue with the man more than his views it seems. You've misunderstood his point. On the contrary it would be a misrepresentation to label all atheists with one narrow definition but he does not because he appreciates there are 'nuances', in other words he acknowledges your reality/version of atheism as well as other variations all though they all share a common ground which is the rejection of God. That's a fact whether you like it or not.
Why did this career convert choose the first name of muhammads uncle Hamza ibn Abdul-Muttalib, whom we know was a thief and a torturer of animals, as well as a drunkard who once called muhammad a slave of his pagan forefathers, later this same hamza ran around the battlefield of uhud shouting that he was the lion of allah, before he unceremoniously tripped over and then was piereced by a javelin thrown by a meccan slave, he was then mutilated and even had his liver eaten by some of the meccans that wanted revenge for their dead that were killed and mutilated and thrown down a well at badr Bukhari : Narrated Ali: I got a she-camel in my share of the war booty on the day (of the battle) of badr, and the Prophet had given me a she-camel from the Khumus. When I intended to marry Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle, I had an appointment with a goldsmith from the tribe of Bani Qainuqa' to go with me to bring Idhkhir (i.e. grass of pleasant smell) and sell it to the goldsmiths and spend its price on my wedding party. I was collecting for my she-camels equipment of saddles, sacks and ropes while my two she-camels were kneeling down beside the room of an Ansari man. I returned after collecting whatever I collected, to see the humps of my two she-camels cut off and their flanks cut open and some portion of their livers was taken out. When I saw that state of my two she-camels, I could not help weeping. I asked, "Who has done this?" The people replied, "hamza bin Abdul Muttalib who is staying with some Ansari drunks in this house." I went away till I reached the Prophet and Zaid bin Haritha was with him. The Prophet noticed on my face the effect of what I had suffered, so the Prophet asked. "What is wrong with you." I replied, "O Allah's Apostle! I have never seen such a day as today. hamza attacked my two she-camels, cut off their humps, and ripped open their flanks, and he is sitting there in a house in the company of some drunks." The Prophet then asked for his covering sheet, put it on, and set out walking followed by me and Zaid bin Haritha till he came to the house where hamza was. He asked permission to enter, and they allowed him, and they were drunk. Allah's Apostle started rebuking hamza for what he had done, but hamza was drunk and his eyes were red. hamza looked at Allah's Apostle and then he raised his eyes, looking at his knees, then he raised up his eyes looking at his umbilicus, and again he raised up his eyes look in at his face. hamza then said, "Aren't you but the slaves of my father?" Allah's Apostle realized that he was drunk, so Allah's Apostle retreated, and we went out with him. (Book #53, Hadith #324)
It doesn't say that in the Hadith at all. You randomly googled an Hadith, ran with it didn't do any research on it's historical authenticity. Now you look dumb. Congratulations.
Muslims trying to talk logically about such a nonsense subject is very amusing to me, why don't muslims try to explain to the disbelievers the true content of their quran? such as that the most repeated story within its book is about allahs love for a sacred she camel and how in a violent rage he group killed the people of thamud, when only one of their number killed this sacred camel, some verse say he killed the people of thamud with earthquakes, whilst another ayat says he killed them with a lightning strike, what nonsense is that, not to mention the fact that most of islam is derived from 7th century unreformed judaism, which in itself is another man made product from ancient desert living superstitious people, these are the topics muslims need to intellectually have discussions about, instead of this hamza excuse nonsense, which is entirely faith driven, just like all other religions that are based on blind and illogical faith without evidence
Those people of Thamud are committing shirk (worshipping idols) and in islam it is one of the major sins.. that's why Allah (swt) send a prophet to WARN them.. but they didn't believe..
Fitrah is not supported by social anthropology or any branch of psychology. The study of psychological archetypes and belief systems is complex and gets clouded and distorted by your religion's so-called "philosophy" of the fitrah. This notion is so weak when it comes to being supported by evidence.
@@hishamradwan6902 "Purely metaphysical" putting aside evidence and experimentation is a Western hobby. I think T.S. Eliot was the one who said that compared to Indian philosophers, Western "philosophers" whether grounded in theism or atheism are a bunch of schoolboys.
@@hishamradwan6902 Why do Muslims think any ideas they have like fitrah are philosophies? This is ridiculous, the ridiculous thing being the notion of philosophy divorced from psychology and consciousness and, of course, logic. Philosophy is a pointless exercise when divorced from psychology and consciousness. In the Indian civilization, the two are one and the same thing, and the West is finally beginning to twin the two.
No matter what kind of atheist you are (even though the used explanation is a little bit shaky, but hey, it is just Hamza), they all have one thing in common. They recognize that there is zero evidence for god, any god.
If we're taking physical evidence as meaning taking a physical phenomena as evidence for a specific claim then the existence of a First Cause or Prime Mover or God is proven through the existence of the universe since we all agree the universe is finite and had a beginning ie. Big Bang and if the universe had a beginning then there must have been something before it that led to this event and eventually there has to be a stopping point from which everything began (ie. God for the believer). Personally it makes more sense for me to put faith in the probability of there being an intelligent Being that designed this amazing universe rather than chalk it up to randomness.
Tofi Rah First of all, these are only assumptions. Not proof. Sorry, this is just not sufficient. Believers think this is proof because they already decided that god is real, but in fact it is just wishful thinking. Now let’s assume that these ‘arguments’ were valid. An argument without actual evidence to support the argument is never enough to be seen as proof. Not in court, not here. Any argument on its own is not evidence. What all theist forget is that you actually have to demonstrate that the supernatural is real. Not just assume it as you do in your comment. You cannot claim god to be in the supernatural world while using arguments from the natural world as proof of the supernatural world. That is dumb, ignorant or dishonest. You choose. If you do claim that your god is part of the natural world then you have to demonstrate that using the scientific method. Science investigates the natural world. Not the supernatural. Otherwise you just engage in poor apologetics, based on faith. Faith cannot demonstrate anything to be true. You can believe anything on faith.
@@absquereligione5409 Because I don't have the time to reply to all your points I will only address the first few for now. Disclaimer: I am not discussing God/evidences for God here but I am making a more subtle point. You said I was only speaking on 'assumptions' and that this is not sufficient. I would counter that by saying in reality (as in what we choose to believe or disbelieve in our own actual lives) we *all* hold assumptions from which we work. Including scientists, teachers, students, etc. One specific example: when you or I were reading a science textbook we read that cells have a nucleus. Now what did we do with this information? We accepted it based on the assumption that the authors and editors were credible and had done their own research into the matter. So the only point I'm making here is that practically speaking we all work from assumptions and the fact that we are working from those assumptions indicates that we consider that sufficient. As for the second point about not having evidence for the argument. The physical evidence is the universe and the fact that it had a beginning. This is what science tells us atleast. Now based on this fact I am logically inferring that if the universe had a beginning and it did not exist forever there was something before it that led to the existence of the universe. Another point we diverge on is that I do not hold science to be the only tool for discovering the truth. Science has its limitations as you pointed out regarding the supernatural world and I completely agree which is why I dont use science to prove its existence. My only aim is to show that believing in a Creator is not illogical, or any more illogical than believing that the entire universe came into being by itself.
@@tofiwise8241 Sorry, your arguments are too shaky (again) 1. Yes we all have assumptions. But then you apply science to test those assumptions and that is how we arrive at knowledge and that is what ends up in your college book. NOT the assumption. What you are doing is jumping from assumption to conclusion. That is not how this works. You have to demonstrate the validity or truth of your assumption. 2. "The universe is the evidence." This apologetic argument is actually getting annoying because of its ignorance. Nobody knows what led to the existence of the universe. We are all ignorant on this question. You do not get to claim that you do know, without any demonstration from your side. You just claim to have the answer...but you don't. You presuppose a god (your god) and that is why you think it is logical. But this only works for gullible believers. Don't claim faith as a basis for knowledge. I know this because the universe was started by a quantum multiplier. Not by your god. 3. You are allowed to believe in a creator of course, you may even find it logical, but until you can come up with a way to demonstrate the supernatural, it is just an assumption (again). Find your own 'scientific' method to test the supernatural. Stop using science as an excuse to fill the gaps with your god. In conclusion, I seem to disagree with all aspects of your response. So my question is: Do you have something, anything, that you can actually demonstrate or is it all based on faith and/or pseudo logic?
@@absquereligione5409 So I just wanted to clarify a misunderstanding we seem to be having. What you are referring to as an "assumption" I see it as a logical conclusion. Also I am not using science/scientific approach to prove the existence of a Creator itself but rather I only used science to prove the validity of the premise (premise being the universe began and has not existed ad infinitum). Once again let me remind you that we do not rely on science as the exclusive path to knowledge. What I am using is logic because science cannot help us in this matter of the supernatural. Here this being a supernatural matter is not my "assumption" but rather a logical conclusion derived from the premise of the universe having a beginning and that beginning requiring something before it to have led to that moment. My "logic" informs me that the balance and order in the universe must have been intentionally caused i.e. by a Higher Being/Supernatural Being. This is my logic informing me not a mere assumption. Example: Similar to how if I were to find a piece of wood carved into the shape of a house my reasoning would inform me this object did not come to this form by itself but rather it is the work of a necessarily skilled person. The more complex and details included in the work the more I would be able to infer about the artist himself. Now you call this a mere 'assumption' that cannot be proven because the artist is not present. While I allow my ability to reason to lead me to the *rational* explanation that the proof that there is an artist is in the object itself. Definition of rational: based on or in accordance with *reason* or *logic*. Also for a person to be claiming 'we are all ignorant on this question [what caused the universe to come into being]' you ironically come across as being very sure of yourself. If you really did not know, I think you would approach the matter with more humility instead of holding the 'assumption' that you know better about that which you claim to know nothing about.
These are the four *biggest hoaxes* (containing the deadliest memes) in history: *_1_* The Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh or Mikra), a collection of 24 books written in biblical Hebrew/Aramaic. It is mostly based on oral and written religious traditions of other peoples around the Israelites. Those 24 books are the source of the 46 books of the Catholic Bible Old Testament (accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church) and the 39 books of the Protestant Bible Old Testament. *_2_* The New Testament, a collection of 27 books in the Catholic and Protestant bibles. It is based on the Hebrew Bible. *_3_* The Quran, a collection of 114 chapters _(suwar)_ divided into verses. It is based on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. These holy books have three *big* problems: 1 Following Genesis 3:1 they say Adam and Eve (who never lived) sinned and thus brought pain, death, disease, and bloodshed into the world. A talking male serpent? 2 They have caused and are causing untold physical and mental suffering to humankind. 3 Although they claim to be clear and trustworthy, being God’s word, they make many vague statements contradicting modern science. *_4_* Karl Marx’s _Das Kapital,_ which holds ideas and ideals that will never work. The first communists were first-century Christians, who failed miserably. Sharing, altruism, and cooperation are *not* in our genes-we have to work hard for them; read Richard Dawkins’s _Selfish Gene._ 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
Here is logical proof for the necessary existence of an uncaused Cause, why this uncaused cause necessarily is sentient, and why Islam is worth investigating:
*Indisputable Claim:* _there are causes for effects._
To deny causality you prove causality because your skepticism is something caused. This claim is impossible to refute.
*Question 1:* _So there are these causes for things that we discover. Will this causal chain of discovery go on forever or come to an end?_
*Question 2:* _Can this causal chain go on forever? Is it possible?_
No it's not possible. If the causal chain went on forever, we would not exist because the cause that caused our existence one hop before us on the causal chain would have to have first been caused. And that cause that caused us would have to be caused another hop away. And then that one another hop away. And then that one another hop away. And then that one another ho....
And considering we would not come to existence in an infinite causal chain, there *necessarily* must have been an uncaused cause; our existence is proof there must have been an uncaused cause.
*Contention 1:* _what if everything arose from nothing?_
That would be impossible both logically and scientifically; if this were even a reasonable challenge, every scientific theory could be explained away with nothingness being the cause of any natural phenomena, which is absurd.
*Contention 2:* _What if the uncaused cause is the universe; the universe could be eternal!_
The universe contains time, and if the universe were eternal there'd be an infinite history of past events; an infinite history of past events means we'd never reach the present, for the same reason an infinite causal chain would never lead to us being created. Before time could flow to the present, an infinite history must precede it and it could never precede it, because infinite doesn't end.
All that's left is the uncaused cause. We've established that an uncaused cause is necessary because we exist, so now let's ask more questions:
*Question 3:* _what are the necessary attributes this uncaused cause necessarily possesses, being an uncaused cause?_
This uncaused cause must be independent. Why? Because it originated everything and has no cause, so it's *necessarily* independent. The keyword is necessarily. Meaning an uncaused cause that isn't independent cannot be an uncaused cause.
It must have possessed power due to the ability to produce the universe. Because it's independent, it *necessarily* doesn't depend on a power source, so its power is limitless.
Now, with all the power in the world, it cannot produce a cup of coffee without the will to choose to make a cup of coffee or not to make a cup of coffee, meaning will is essential/necessary ingredient to produce things and power isn't enough. The ability to choose to do or choose not to do: we exist, so the uncaused cause *necessarily* requires a will to have chosen us to exist. In addition, because it's independent, the uncaused Cause's will is superior to the will of any other conscious beings. So if I will to board my plane and this uncaused Cause wills for me not to board my plane, I will not board my plane. Its will is necessarily independent of our will and is supreme over ours.
It must have knowledge, which is required to make a choice. Some knowledge of the choices must be known in order to choose to do x or y or abstaining. Due to the *necessary* independence of this Uncaused Cause, it cannot depend on a source of knowledge which necessitates that its knowledge is limitless.
*Contention 3:* _What if the Uncaused Cause is not sentient, but some sort of mechanical process, like a multiverse generator, that constantly generates universes at random and we're just one of those universes?_
This would be impossible because the Uncaused Cause must be something independent and a mechanical process, like the multiverse generator, cannot do other than what it's programmed or designed to do, which necessarily means it cannot be independent and impossible for it to be the Uncaused Cause.
*Contention 4:* _The concept of Creator is impossible because the Creator cannot create something without time and causality is dependent on time._
I would challenge the claim that causality is dependent on time and say that time is actually dependent on causality. Reason being, time is the motion from past towards present/future, which means the present/future is caused by this motion, so to speak. If time is the parent and causality is its child, time must be independent of causality which it is not. In fact, causality seems to be an order of events and time is the motion between these events. To say it is impossible for a Creator to create because of time is akin to saying it's impossible for a Creator, with limitless power and knowledge, to give motion to motionless events, which is absurd.
So far, we've deduced this uncaused cause must have absolute independence, necessarily have limitless power, limitless intelligence, and a will to choose.
*Do you see why people believe now?*
The only religion whose God is consistent with the logically deductible uncaused Cause is *Judaism* and *Islam.*
There are no other religions that fit this criteria...
@Arfat Kar No I haven't but I disagree with the strength of his cosmological argument for the existence of a Creator. It relies on scientific theories, which is why it's not so strong. His other arguments are very strong though, in the book.
*Indisputable Claim: there are causes for effects.*
Here, let me fix that: there are _known_ causes for _some_ effects.
(For the moment I'll look past the highly equivocal words of "cause" and "effect.")
*Question 1: So there are these causes for things that we discover. Will this causal chain of discovery go on forever or come to an end?*
We don't know. We don't even know if this "chain" truly exists.
*Question 2: Can this causal chain go on forever? Is it possible?*
How is this a second question rather than a mere rephrasing of Q1? Other than the same answer to Q1, let me also add that we don't know how "possible" this is, since possibility is based on known factors and we don't have those.
*Contention 1: what if everything arose from nothing? *
Define "nothing" in some meaningful sense. Then define "arose" in some meaningful sense. Then define the connection between nothing and "everything" and possibly what you mean by "everything."
*Contention 2: What if the uncaused cause is the universe; the universe could be eternal!*
What is an uncaused cause?
Also, do you mean, "What if the universe is an uncaused cause?" Because even that makes little sense, but makes more sense than what you asked.
*All that's left is the uncaused cause. We've established that an uncaused cause is necessary because we exist, so now let's ask more questions:*
But just because we exist does not mean there is an uncaused cause.
*Question 3: what are the necessary attributes this uncaused cause necessarily possesses, being an uncaused cause?*
We don't know. Nothing you have provided so far feeds into this question.
*This uncaused cause must be independent. Why?*
More like independent HOW?
*It must have possessed power due to the ability to produce the universe. Because it's independent, it necessarily doesn't depend on a power source, so its power is limitless.*
That doesn't follow. The necessary minimum requirement, assuming we can grant even this much (which we ought not do), is that this "uncaused cause" has _sufficient power_ to cause the universe (or more accurately, cause "us" since that was your requirement). Not unlimited power, sufficient. Just like I don't need unlimited power to throw a rock, just sufficient power to have the rock thrown.
*Now, with all the power in the world,*
See, already you kneecap yourself. This "uncaused cause" does not have "all the power in the world." It doesn't even have "all the power in the universe." It has... terminology that defies explanation. The _sufficient_ power in existence that pre-dates the universe. Not really the same zing is it?
*The ability to choose to do or choose not to do: we exist, so the uncaused cause necessarily requires a will to have chosen us to exist.*
Not true. We are flotsam, a by-product of the conditions of the universe. Any power that "caused" the universe to exist need not even be aware we would have existed within the universe. After all, even our own galaxy constitutes such a miniscule portion of the entire observable universe, there's no reason to think whatever existed before and outside of the universe would have any awareness of our (eventual) existence. That's assuming this uncaused cause is even aware. And that assumes this uncaused cause cares, could notice, and so on. None of which is justifiable from the premises we have so far.
*So if I will to board my plane and this uncaused Cause wills for me not to board my plane, I will not board my plane.*
That doesn't follow either. This "uncaused cause" need not have a will at all. Further there is no indication this uncaused cause even exists, let alone that it could interfere in what you do, nor that it would care to, nor that it would. So, NO PART of this is supportable.
*It must have knowledge,*
Nope. Again, at most all you have established thus far is that it _had_ (past tense) sufficient power to "cause" the universe to exist. Nothing more. No awareness and no knowledge.
*Contention 4: The concept of Creator*
You are now attempting to smuggle in "creator" when all you have in your previous premises is a "uncaused cause".
*Reason being, time is the motion from past towards present/future,*
No, it isn't. That's the entire nature of both relativity and basically how physics works. Time is a variable. Changes in time is what is relevant however. And it is only possible if time exists as a variable. If you do not have time then you cannot change, if you cannot change then you cannot "do" anything, least of all "cause" anything. Proposing something "outside" of time violates everything we know of how time works. And since you need time and causality for your first premise, if you seek to violate it now you are creating a fallacious case of special pleading. (Not, of course that I accepted your first premise either, but you need it and so your first premise is still a counter to your current one.)
*So far, we've deduced this uncaused cause must have absolute independence, necessarily have limitless power, limitless intelligence, and a will to choose.*
Not remotely.
*Do you see why people believe now?*
No, because even if I granted that there was a cause outside of the universe sufficient to create the universe, it still wouldn't get us to a god.
*The only religion whose God is consistent with the logically deductible uncaused Cause is Judaism and Islam.*
Nope. At minimum your god is the same "being" (if it exists) as the god of Christianity. Not to mention all the other creator-gods of all the other religions. Not to mention that your own holy texts (and that of Judaism) do not support the very specific thing you have claimed must be the case.
@@helsharidy123 Bro can u send me what u wrote I cannot.copy it?
muslim4life76@gmail.com
@@mustahsinmir6226 Sent. Shoot me emails with your counter arguments and I'll reply
@@Tovec8 Thanks for responding to the post, Tovec. I'll respond to your point about sufficient cause vs unlimited power and why it must be the latter because this was probably the strongest of the arguments provided.
You are right. If I throw a ball, I don't need unlimited power; I just need sufficient power to be able to throw the ball. Yet what about the cause of everything on the causal chain? It must be independent because it is Uncaused. We know it must be Uncaused because that is what my argument has proven, by logical necessity, due to our existence.
If the Uncaused cause was dependent on a source of power to create, meaning it had finite power, you could argue the source of power is our cause of our existence, which means this "Uncaused cause" is not actually Uncaused, and that it could be this other source for power that possesses this necessary title.
If you say none possess this title, then we would not exist because there'd be an infinite chain of finite creations depending on one another and we would never exist.
So refreshing to see Hamza, may Allah preserve and strengthen him.
I have seen this man online for awhile, and his change is so full of light. From mental changes to physical and spiritual.
Great to see Hamza at this channel. I do not know if it's just me or not. I feel he was not comfortable seemingly?!
Atheism is basically someone who doesn’t believe in a god or any kind of god, it is a belief of people who don’t want to believe in anything, that’s what it basically is, spiritualism is the belief of what could be out there and not knowing that it is out there(like ghost, demons, magic, and feeling ones self connected to their inner spiritual self in a higher meaning, and everything that is spiritual) being agnostic is where someone believes that there is a god but not actually wanting to follow or worship any god.
what happened to his ashley madison case again?
I remember watching his debates against atheists years ago
A Quranic Warner Salam! sister watch videos of brother imran of speakers corner.
@Tom Edwards Sounds like rumors
hamza is masha ALLAH legend of dawah my ALLAH reward him and he's FAMILY Ameen
Someone's started lifting
*curling
@@SandiegoRockstar Hahahaha
hes been huge for ages
damn Brother Hamza is getting more and more jacked by the day does he still practice wing chun and boxing?
𝔻𝕠𝕟𝕖 𝕊𝕦𝕓𝕤𝕔𝕣𝕚𝕓𝕖
𝕀 𝕃𝕠𝕧𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕓𝕣𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕞𝕠𝕤𝕥
𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕤 𝕄𝕦𝕤𝕝𝕚𝕞 𝕕𝕒𝕨𝕒𝕙 𝕓𝕣𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕤,
QUESTION FOR HAMZA.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BEING OUTSIDE SPACE AND TIME ,INVISIBLE, DOES NOT MANIFEST IN REALITY IN ANY DETECTABLE WAY AND A NON EXISTENT DEITY
Well sir you'd have to give me your definition of existent first. Does it only include things inside our spacetime?
Fatram Fatram we have many signs to believe in a creator. You must understand about the kalam cosmological argument, the abrupt appearance in species in fossil records, the unlikelihood of cells forming by chance (virtually impossible) let alone survive to reproduce. It’s very argumentatively weak to assert that al the species that exist today in their complex systems stem from natural selection and “positive mutations” (which haven’t been shown to be true whatsoever). My job here is to warn you of being heedless. Richard Dawkins nor anyone will aid you in the day of judgement and you will be held accountable for trying to lie about the signs of the creator.
Fatram Fatram I’m only warning you because you are my fellow man. It makes no difference to me if you accept the message or not. I did my job. I’m not here to debate. For you is your beliefs, and for me are mine. If you have any genuine questions feel free to ask.
Can u tell about ur great great great great great great great great great grandpa or grandma grave location or bring out their DNA or their bones? ....that’s the answer to ur all questions .....
Thanks bye tc
May Allah guide u and me .
what happened to his ashley madison case?
May Allah Blessings, Glory, Guidance, Mercy, be upon The Believers, [Allahumma Amin]
So true, these egotistical debates are not appropriate for personal, spiritual topics
Wow! Hamza Tzortzis at let the Quran speak! Nice
He is a hero.
Why has his voice changed? Has he grown up?
Hamza, I don't know you (obviously). But you've changed so much in the last couple of years. So much more genuine and open to people, holding other beliefs, in a way that you were not. If your faith is stronger, then I'm really happy for you. (Yet I do sense that you have had to question a number of presuppositions relating to religion and irreligion). Sail strong, and I believe now you might be on your way to becoming a serious author.
Your former sidekick Adnan Rashid however is still hopeless.
@@alfonso201 I don't know which hole you might be referring to. Anyways, I know that no one cares what I might think. Same goes for everyone in the comment section as far as being irrelevant. That is not news. I'm just putting my views out there. All the best.
Jazaku lahu kheiran Sheekh Al-Islam
It is sad that you attempt to indict atheism, yet delete rebuttals by atheists...It speaks volumes to the fact protecting what you want to believe supersedes your need for truth.
Ow really?
Why does that not shock me. I wonder how long my post will last. I honestly couldn't get through half of this video. It's guys claiming to know my mind better then I know it myself that really makes me detest religions and religious dogma.
Let the Quran Speak
:
Nothing to be sceptical of. A couple of viewers also commented that the original video had a faulty audio track! We don't remove critical comments and we appreciate your thoughts!
@@hishamradwan6902
Ah when he said it speaks volumes, it wasn't talking about the sound levels.
It's just ironic that atheist even bothered to come to a channel for religious people. You would only find this channel is if you're Muslim yourself or you, really, really... Depressed to debate. Like you sat their and just typed in and sat there clicking random Islamic videos to debate.
@Kuffar Legion that's actually pretty sad. Out of all the things you could be doing, you rather waste your time on this Earth to "mess" with us. You call us idiots and yet it's the other way around. Time is to short for that.
Hamza is greek guys, not arab..and he is Muslim by choice and not by a birth..
Make me proud, even though I am bad muslim
"Indisputable Claim: there are causes for effects."
I dispute that claim, which you have made without evidence, and perhaps without knowing that science disagrees with you
And you're also wrong in several of your following opinions.
You really haven't thought this through, have you?
@Embre2000
No he did not use logical thinking.
@@darrylelam256 yes he did
"The claim that 'there are causes for effects' is false BECAUSE science has refuted that claim." Paradox. Denying causality = denying logic.
@Kuffar Legion if nothing is not nothing that its not really nothing is it ?
@Seth Roentgen , do you know any example for your claim? Off course there are causes for effects, it says science also,
What is wrong with this guy? He is either ignorant or deliberately dishonest. He has had the definition of atheism explained to him many, many times, by some very renowned atheists, and he still refuses to understand the only meaning. How hard is it to open a dictionary?
Where is a palm face emoji when you need it? He is talking about the practical definition of atheism, not an academic one. He is basing his classification based on why people have decided to become atheists and not what atheism actually means as a philosophical stance.
The talk was directed to a Muslim audience and not a general one. The point of it is to allow the enable the Muslim community to understand the trend of atheism from an Islamic point of view. Nothing more and nothing less.
@@hishamradwan6902 rubbish
He understands atheism better than atheists themselves. Hamza is being comprehensive and open minded here to understand that there are nuances to what atheism is as opposed to a definition that doesn't represent all atheists. I recommend you reading his book. No need to get offended. Life is short. Peace.
@@uchihazxe he is by no means comprehensive or open minded. Listen to his tone and read between the lines. This bloke has repeatedly misrepresented atheists. If he were to be fair or balanced in his arguments, then demonstrate examples of muslims explaining why they believe in their god and follow their religion. The definition of atheism represents all atheists otherwise, by definition, they are not atheists.
@@rjskeptic5273 You have an issue with the man more than his views it seems. You've misunderstood his point. On the contrary it would be a misrepresentation to label all atheists with one narrow definition but he does not because he appreciates there are 'nuances', in other words he acknowledges your reality/version of atheism as well as other variations all though they all share a common ground which is the rejection of God. That's a fact whether you like it or not.
Why did this career convert choose the first name of muhammads uncle
Hamza ibn Abdul-Muttalib, whom we know was a thief and a torturer of animals, as well as a drunkard who once called muhammad a slave of his pagan forefathers, later this same hamza ran around the battlefield of uhud shouting that he was the lion of allah, before he unceremoniously tripped over and then was piereced by a javelin thrown by a meccan slave, he was then mutilated and even had his liver eaten by some of the meccans that wanted revenge for their dead that were killed and mutilated and thrown down a well at badr
Bukhari : Narrated Ali: I got a she-camel in my share of the war booty on the day (of the battle) of badr,
and the Prophet had given me a she-camel from the Khumus. When I
intended to marry Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle, I had an
appointment with a goldsmith from the tribe of Bani Qainuqa' to go with
me to bring Idhkhir (i.e. grass of pleasant smell) and sell it to the
goldsmiths and spend its price on my wedding party. I was collecting for
my she-camels equipment of saddles, sacks and ropes while my two
she-camels were kneeling down beside the room of an Ansari man. I
returned after collecting whatever I collected, to see the humps of my
two she-camels cut off and their flanks cut open and some portion of
their livers was taken out. When I saw that state of my two she-camels, I
could not help weeping. I asked, "Who has done this?" The people
replied, "hamza bin Abdul Muttalib
who is staying with some Ansari drunks in this house." I went away till I
reached the Prophet and Zaid bin Haritha was with him. The Prophet
noticed on my face the effect of what I had suffered, so the Prophet
asked. "What is wrong with you." I replied, "O Allah's Apostle! I have
never seen such a day as today. hamza
attacked my two she-camels, cut off their humps, and ripped open their
flanks, and he is sitting there in a house in the company of some
drunks." The Prophet then asked for his covering sheet, put it on, and
set out walking followed by me and Zaid bin Haritha till he came to the
house where hamza was. He asked permission to enter, and they allowed him, and they were drunk. Allah's Apostle started rebuking hamza for what he had done, but hamza was drunk and his eyes were red. hamza
looked at Allah's Apostle and then he raised his eyes, looking at his
knees, then he raised up his eyes looking at his umbilicus, and again he
raised up his eyes look in at his face. hamza
then said, "Aren't you but the slaves of my father?" Allah's Apostle
realized that he was drunk, so Allah's Apostle retreated, and we went
out with him.
(Book #53, Hadith #324)
It doesn't say that in the Hadith at all. You randomly googled an Hadith, ran with it didn't do any research on it's historical authenticity. Now you look dumb. Congratulations.
Lol, you are silly, keep on researching maybe you'll get lucky, if Allah wills.
Mashallah the guns are looking good, barakallah feekum.
God bless you.
What??? Music at the beginning? ??? Astagfirullah. ..
oh shut up its fine
You're definitely Pakistani
Ok I'm 20 seconds in, who wants to bet that I can easily answer any questions that the guy put forward?
Muslims trying to talk logically about such a nonsense subject is very amusing to me, why don't muslims try to explain to the disbelievers the true content of their quran? such as that the most repeated story within its book is about allahs love for a sacred she camel and how in a violent rage he group killed the people of thamud, when only one of their number killed this sacred camel, some verse say he killed the people of thamud with earthquakes, whilst another ayat says he killed them with a lightning strike, what nonsense is that, not to mention the fact that most of islam is derived from 7th century unreformed judaism, which in itself is another man made product from ancient desert living superstitious people, these are the topics muslims need to intellectually have discussions about, instead of this hamza excuse nonsense, which is entirely faith driven, just like all other religions that are based on blind and illogical faith without evidence
Those people of Thamud are committing shirk (worshipping idols) and in islam it is one of the major sins.. that's why Allah (swt) send a prophet to WARN them.. but they didn't believe..
Mashallah
❤🙏
Tsunami of exmuslims on youtube. Coming out of the closet massively
allhamdullah
i've investigated. i remain unconvinced. it's like watching Bill Craig in a skullcap. let go of your belief.
What a load of twaddle
Fitrah is not supported by social anthropology or any branch of psychology. The study of psychological archetypes and belief systems is complex and gets clouded and distorted by your religion's so-called "philosophy" of the fitrah. This notion is so weak when it comes to being supported by evidence.
It is purely a religious belief that may have empirical evidence or may be purely metaphysical. Whether psychology recognizes it or not is irrelevant.
@@hishamradwan6902 "Purely metaphysical" putting aside evidence and experimentation is a Western hobby. I think T.S. Eliot was the one who said that compared to Indian philosophers, Western "philosophers" whether grounded in theism or atheism are a bunch of schoolboys.
@@hishamradwan6902 Why do Muslims think any ideas they have like fitrah are philosophies? This is ridiculous, the ridiculous thing being the notion of philosophy divorced from psychology and consciousness and, of course, logic. Philosophy is a pointless exercise when divorced from psychology and consciousness. In the Indian civilization, the two are one and the same thing, and the West is finally beginning to twin the two.
The Fitrah is not a philosophy in itself, rather it is part of a philosophy.
@@hishamradwan6902 Which philosophy is it a part of?
Athiesm is just a modern-day Neanderthalism...
No matter what kind of atheist you are (even though the used explanation is a little bit shaky, but hey, it is just Hamza),
they all have one thing in common. They recognize that there is zero evidence for god, any god.
If we're taking physical evidence as meaning taking a physical phenomena as evidence for a specific claim then the existence of a First Cause or Prime Mover or God is proven through the existence of the universe since we all agree the universe is finite and had a beginning ie. Big Bang and if the universe had a beginning then there must have been something before it that led to this event and eventually there has to be a stopping point from which everything began (ie. God for the believer). Personally it makes more sense for me to put faith in the probability of there being an intelligent Being that designed this amazing universe rather than chalk it up to randomness.
Tofi Rah First of all, these are only assumptions. Not proof. Sorry, this is just not sufficient.
Believers think this is proof because they already decided that god is real, but in fact it is just wishful thinking.
Now let’s assume that these ‘arguments’ were valid. An argument without actual evidence to support the argument is never enough to be seen as proof. Not in court, not here. Any argument on its own is not evidence.
What all theist forget is that you actually have to demonstrate that the supernatural is real. Not just assume it as you do in your comment.
You cannot claim god to be in the supernatural world while using arguments from the natural world as proof of the supernatural world. That is dumb, ignorant or dishonest. You choose.
If you do claim that your god is part of the natural world then you have to demonstrate that using the scientific method. Science investigates the natural world. Not the supernatural.
Otherwise you just engage in poor apologetics, based on faith. Faith cannot demonstrate anything to be true. You can believe anything on faith.
@@absquereligione5409 Because I don't have the time to reply to all your points I will only address the first few for now. Disclaimer: I am not discussing God/evidences for God here but I am making a more subtle point. You said I was only speaking on 'assumptions' and that this is not sufficient. I would counter that by saying in reality (as in what we choose to believe or disbelieve in our own actual lives) we *all* hold assumptions from which we work. Including scientists, teachers, students, etc. One specific example: when you or I were reading a science textbook we read that cells have a nucleus. Now what did we do with this information? We accepted it based on the assumption that the authors and editors were credible and had done their own research into the matter. So the only point I'm making here is that practically speaking we all work from assumptions and the fact that we are working from those assumptions indicates that we consider that sufficient.
As for the second point about not having evidence for the argument. The physical evidence is the universe and the fact that it had a beginning. This is what science tells us atleast. Now based on this fact I am logically inferring that if the universe had a beginning and it did not exist forever there was something before it that led to the existence of the universe.
Another point we diverge on is that I do not hold science to be the only tool for discovering the truth. Science has its limitations as you pointed out regarding the supernatural world and I completely agree which is why I dont use science to prove its existence. My only aim is to show that believing in a Creator is not illogical, or any more illogical than believing that the entire universe came into being by itself.
@@tofiwise8241 Sorry, your arguments are too shaky (again)
1. Yes we all have assumptions. But then you apply science to test those assumptions and that is how we arrive at knowledge and that is what ends up in your college book. NOT the assumption.
What you are doing is jumping from assumption to conclusion. That is not how this works. You have to demonstrate the validity or truth of your assumption.
2. "The universe is the evidence." This apologetic argument is actually getting annoying because of its ignorance. Nobody knows what led to the existence of the universe. We are all ignorant on this question. You do not get to claim that you do know, without any demonstration from your side.
You just claim to have the answer...but you don't. You presuppose a god (your god) and that is why you think it is logical. But this only works for gullible believers. Don't claim faith as a basis for knowledge.
I know this because the universe was started by a quantum multiplier. Not by your god.
3. You are allowed to believe in a creator of course, you may even find it logical, but until you can come up with a way to demonstrate the supernatural, it is just an assumption (again). Find your own 'scientific' method to test the supernatural. Stop using science as an excuse to fill the gaps with your god.
In conclusion, I seem to disagree with all aspects of your response. So my question is: Do you have something, anything, that you can actually demonstrate or is it all based on faith and/or pseudo logic?
@@absquereligione5409 So I just wanted to clarify a misunderstanding we seem to be having. What you are referring to as an "assumption" I see it as a logical conclusion. Also I am not using science/scientific approach to prove the existence of a Creator itself but rather I only used science to prove the validity of the premise (premise being the universe began and has not existed ad infinitum). Once again let me remind you that we do not rely on science as the exclusive path to knowledge. What I am using is logic because science cannot help us in this matter of the supernatural. Here this being a supernatural matter is not my "assumption" but rather a logical conclusion derived from the premise of the universe having a beginning and that beginning requiring something before it to have led to that moment. My "logic" informs me that the balance and order in the universe must have been intentionally caused i.e. by a Higher Being/Supernatural Being. This is my logic informing me not a mere assumption.
Example: Similar to how if I were to find a piece of wood carved into the shape of a house my reasoning would inform me this object did not come to this form by itself but rather it is the work of a necessarily skilled person. The more complex and details included in the work the more I would be able to infer about the artist himself. Now you call this a mere 'assumption' that cannot be proven because the artist is not present. While I allow my ability to reason to lead me to the *rational* explanation that the proof that there is an artist is in the object itself.
Definition of rational: based on or in accordance with *reason* or *logic*.
Also for a person to be claiming 'we are all ignorant on this question [what caused the universe to come into being]' you ironically come across as being very sure of yourself. If you really did not know, I think you would approach the matter with more humility instead of holding the 'assumption' that you know better about that which you claim to know nothing about.
These are the four *biggest hoaxes* (containing the deadliest memes) in history:
*_1_* The Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh or Mikra), a collection of 24 books written in biblical Hebrew/Aramaic. It is mostly based on oral and written religious traditions of other peoples around the Israelites. Those 24 books are the source of the 46 books of the Catholic Bible Old Testament (accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church) and the 39 books of the Protestant Bible Old Testament.
*_2_* The New Testament, a collection of 27 books in the Catholic and Protestant bibles. It is based on the Hebrew Bible.
*_3_* The Quran, a collection of 114 chapters _(suwar)_ divided into verses. It is based on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.
These holy books have three *big* problems:
1 Following Genesis 3:1 they say Adam and Eve (who never lived) sinned and thus brought pain, death, disease, and bloodshed into the world. A talking male serpent?
2 They have caused and are causing untold physical and mental suffering to humankind.
3 Although they claim to be clear and trustworthy, being God’s word, they make many vague statements contradicting modern science.
*_4_* Karl Marx’s _Das Kapital,_ which holds ideas and ideals that will never work. The first communists were first-century Christians, who failed miserably. Sharing, altruism, and cooperation are *not* in our genes-we have to work hard for them; read Richard Dawkins’s _Selfish Gene._
💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌