@demi- dogg So humans can create robots with very complicated internal designs and us humans who too have very complicated internal designs apparently are not created? People saying that God doesn't exist is the same as videogame characters saying that nobody created me.
@demi- dogg And have you pondered upon your purpose? And no, you are wrong. We won't enter 'Happyland' simply by saying words. We will enter it at the mercy and pardon of our Creator.
@demi- dogg What my Prophet did was something that was done over 1400 years ago at a time where child marriages were common. And besides he married the child and consummated his marriage with her. Even the bible says Moses commanded his men to keep young girls for themselves. The hebrew word used is 'hat-tap' which means young girl Numbers 31:18 and i am not using this to disregard the bible but rather to prove how common it was. And the problems with child marriage was discovered recently so it means before most likely no one found child marriage to be wrong as most likely they did not find a problem in it.
This is one of the most amazing things i’v ever heard that moved me. Especially the last part is quite interesting and it makes a lot of sense. Everyone should ponder on it!
Thanks for uploading this! I've been struggling a lot with religion lately and this helped a bit. I especially appreciated the fact that your arguments weren't lifted as direct quotes from the Qu'ran - when I ask people questions, sometimes I find the lines of argument to be quite circular (i.e. the Qu'ran say X about God, which is true because the Qu'ran is true but the argument relies on you believing the Qu'ran is true in the first place).
I see where you coming from. The correct way of puting it in my oppinion is that the Quran is the best proof of Allah since it is the direct revelation that is informing us about him. The Quran establishes it self as proof and does not require nor promote believing in it blindly. The second "best" proof is reason, *It can be shows through first principles *Observing the universe, the laws, the fine tuning. *Conciousness ..etc
@demi- dogg ur problem is ur projecting ur point of view of religion frm Christianity. Not frm Islam. Also reason needs to be observed this is frm scientism. I clearly see it frm ur comment.
That is such a powerful reasoning that got my brain overheating and my heart leaping. So interesting mashaAllah, once again beautiful work thank you so much!
Assalamu alaykum, thanks for the lecture and barakAllah fik for your work. I apologize in advance for the long comment. You said that the atheist's point of view doesn't solve the problem of evil, yet makes it even worse. The thing is that atheism (at least the one I find consistent and challenging, not the one that makes up its own myths) does not pretend to have an explanation for what's happening but rather refrain to give explanations that are not proven unanimously to be true. One does not want to have a explanation at all cost because not having one is more depressive (here the cost being scarifying one's own standards that determine what is true). Also, the fact that the most afflicted ones still believe in God and that their faith is the only thing that gives them hope does not make their belief true. In fact there exists people in the same situation but who have different beliefs (and therefore false beliefs from the islamic point of view). Also even though I appreciate the lecture and you brother helping us clarifying the issue, I don't think saying that "those who bring up the problem of evil are trolls on facebook who never experienced it" brings any kind of constructive argument. In fact it could even be counter productive: 1- trolls could very well bring up legitimate questions 2- it's not relevant: I am a muslim who struggles with those issues; it is a deep philosophical question on its own so one should save his energy trying to tackle the heart of the problem. I think the atheism problem comes down to defining what is the process of determining the truth, and this is so challenging given the fact that truth is broadly defined as a fact that can be verified to correspond to reality. While I am writing this I am watching your third part lol, so allow me to continue. The difference between religion and love or religion and beauty, is that love and beauty don't give statements which are meant to stand for the truth. It all depends on what one defines to be love. If one defines love as a specific feeling toward someone, if I have this feeling then love exists. The same thing can be said about faith. No atheist will deny that faith exist. And in fact the rigorous atheist does not have to say "love exists", he will instead say "I feel something inside of myself toward this person" which is nothing but an experimental fact, not something meant to be a universal truth. The issue with religions is that they claim that very precise statements constitute the truth, therefore not believing in them implies being in the wrong (with worse implications like hell etc), while those statements can not be proven by a proposed efficient method of determining truth. After that, if I understand correctly, you said that the scientific method is itself a belief that is not proven to be true. I would not really agree with that. I would say that the scientific method is a set of standards that has been found to be the most efficient up to that day in making correspondences between claims and actual facts. Any better method is welcome to be tested and its efficiency verified. Again I apologize for the very long comment. Again those discussions are fascinating to me and crucial so thank you.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. 1) I don't quite agree. In a more general context than atheism, I would even say that not proposing an idea when we don't know is humble (if not normal), and this is because the two processes are independent. One can simply criticize an idea because he thinks it is not solid. Now proposing something else requires a whole different reflexion. Having an idea by default is in my sense disastrous. 2) My mistake then, sorry. I was too much expecting a contradiction of atheism, and I thought all you did was giving counter arguments. Then indeed the islamic belief has a pragmatic value, and so have other beliefs. In that sense it doesn't help in refuting doubts. 3) I probably did not take a good angle on that one. Let me try again. Experimental evidences constitute a certain type of evidences. Even if one can not prove that we all die or that love exists (may be one has I actually don't know), the experimental replicable facts upon which a vast majority of people agree are abundant on those two examples for instance. The experimental replicable facts about the existence of God, of the afterlife, upon which most people would agree are far less present. And at the end of the day it is not meant to be proven. A faith by nature is a belief that can not be proven, otherwise it is not a faith anymore, it is an undeniable fact. There lies my main struggle: calling "truth" something not only unprovable, but something that is by nature not meant to be proven. 4) I see your point better now. I think the standard you are referring to is the assumption that there exists a physical world in which we live in, and we all have the same 5 senses to interact with it. I think even though we can not prove that, it is a pretty loose assumption that every reasonable person would agree with. In that framework, an efficient method would be one that makes a correspondence between a statement which meaning we agree upon, and an actual fact that we all value with our senses. Thank you brother.
Very well said, i myself wrestle with these doubts and i have done so for years now. I've read the Quran read hadith books, Philosophy theology and so on. One thing that I have concluded from my research atleast so far is that you cannot prove God or Islam for that matter rationally. Its just not possible, all arguments that preachers and debaters give have solid counter arguments. So if you must believe you should know its not based on rationality.
@@chikiwiki0807 It's based on Rationality. The philosophical arguments have mostly been stalemate. The only thing that has happened that atheists have changed the definition of their beliefs on the paper. Otherwise nothing else. Yes Islamic belief is not empiricism. However that was never claimed. Infact, belief in the unseen is a central tenent in islam. We have philosophical arguments like Kalam or Contingency or Infinite Regress for which one to reject has to take the extremely implausible possibilities like mereological nihilism.
Alhamdullillah by faith believing in Allah subhanaho wa tala helps you in every time you have really something strong to hold on it because you cant hold on something which has no purpose at the end of the day like atheism if you ask them asimple question what is the purpose to wear shoes they will say wel to protect my feet but if you ask them what is the purpose of this life they dont have afair answer
An amazing breakdown on 'thought of doubts' by Asadullah Ali, thanks! Have a query.. '...about a hundred years ago, secular liberal ethics led to genocide' at 13:50 minutes. I'm curious! How could I find some evidence or is there any you'd provide?
@Yieri Lol you you are such an ignorant prick to be honest, the ottomans did in genocide anyone but actually it was nothing But a bunch of secular liberals who controled the Ottoman Empire after april 1914. Actually aJew by the name of Emmanuel carrso, who gave the ottoman sultan abdulhamit his resignation paper, ending muslims rule and changing the laws to liberals westerb laws.
@Yieri Okay, you can look what USA has done to the native population of many islands with radioactive testing, they killed millions in the middle east. They keep their puppets in many states.
He was a necessary voice in the dawah scene. He was balanced and objective. But sadly he left because of the reasons aforementioned. I hope he returns 🙏
I dunno. His experience that 'atheists are generally not persuaded my intellectual arguments' doesnt make sense to me. As an atheist (with a small dash of agnosticism) my experience is that there really doesnt seem to be much evidence that the universe operates in anything other than by completely natural laws. Although i do feel a strong sense that the universe has a purpose for me - which admit is somewhat a contradiction - but there is no sense that this is some specific entity as put forward in organised religion. I could be totally self deluded but it really feels pretty cut and dried and not really much to do with emotion. I dont feel happy or sad about it any more than i do upon observing that apples are generally red or green. It is just a fact that seems fairly incontrivertial to me. I do find irrational arguments for ideology to be somewhat jarring - but this isnt about just religion - i also have the same reaction to unrestrained capitalisation or poor social policy. That comment at the end about atheist societies not existing is a little odd. I thought that bhuddism and confusicism were two examples - worldviews without god. Last i checked china and japan were doing pretty well. Maybe i didnt understand that properly.
VoicesofSilicon a civilization without belief in the supernatural doesnt exist. Thats what he meant properly. Those countries u listed do belief in something, even if god is out of the picture. But atheism is not believing in anything. A god is a symbol of worship, thats the definition. So even C. Ronaldo is a god to some people. Buddhist and other religion without a superior entity doesnt necessarily mean that there is no god as an idol of worship, something to submit urself to. Atheism should be the contrary to that. So you believing in a purpose will put you out of the “faith” of atheism. Its more like you have no idea what the true purpose is, rather than believing in no purpose. From this point its probably your job to find out ur purpose. If you are willing to spend some time on islam, you will find logical correct answers to the typical questions. The faith of islam also resonates with our common sense as human beings, even if you dont understand certain laws in the beginning, you will find the meaning after learning the reason behind those, at least thats how it was for me. Youre also free to look into any other religion, just make sure to use ur brain and find logical sense behind those. And islam is peaceful. I will tell you that right now before you find any comments/ videos claiming on how isis are the true muslims, which is completely false. There is enough proof in islamic sources to contradict those claims and that lead to a peaceful religion. Dont let that confuse you if you plan on learnig a little bit about islam. Peace
The problem with atheists, is atheists. A touch of arrogance perhaps. But what atheists often say, as you just have, is that they are not convinced by the evidence. This is just the fallacy of personal incredulity. And really this makes atheists sound frankly either stupid or dishonest. For someone to say that the following do not support the idea of a God sounds dishonest: 1.The need for a first cause to matter/energy to avoid having to accept the irrationality of an infinite past 2. Fine tuning 3. The elegance of the Maths that describes reality eg e=mc^2 (Dirac) 4. Consciousness 5. That the universe is intelligible (Einstein) 6. Morality 7. A sentient being has arisen that can understand the universe 8. That the Intelligibility of the universe was possible in graded steps allowing cave men to eventually dicoger the higgs boson and split the atom. To hand wave all this away and say this in no way supports the idea of a super intelligence behind the universe itself proves God, as this clearly irrational stance proves our God given freedom of choice. Even if an atheist was not convinced by the argument, they could at least concede the argument has many merits but that in balance they err on the side of non belief. But a total rejection doesn't make sense. Interestingly, there is az video of a tipsy Hitchens admitting that the fine tuning argument was strong enough for him to have deeply thought about it.
I think the way you posed the atheist position on the problem of evil here isn’t really fair. No one is saying atheism provides a better or happier answer, or that it makes evil go away. What is being said is that It’s easier to logically reconcile cruelty in a godless wold even if it doesn’t feel as good than it is to reconcile an omnipotent good god who created a world that allows for cruelty. The “I will take care of it” point you mentioned tries to address the latter portion but it is still unsatisfactory in the sense of “well why have it there in the first place for it to be rectified”. Now this could drag, and probably giving it sufficient discussion would be outside the allocated 7 min scope. Best I’ve heard talk on it was “The Purpose of Life - By Jeffrey Lang”
Logically reconcile cruelty in a godless world? Kindly demonstrate it. Firstly, why is it cruel according to a godless world view? Who says it's cruel? You? An accident of the cosmos and evolution? And allowing evil is a necessary condition for free will and morality. If everything was good, nothing would be. You imposing your emotional understanding of morality doesn't work so the supposed counterargument of "why have evil in the first place?" is a moot point.
@@MansMan42069 But there is no Free Will in Islam. It is a contradiction to say there is an all knowing entity that created the universe, and that it knows what happened before in the middle and in the future. So basically It’s knows what we all are going to choose to do even before our parents come together to have sex to make us. But at the same time this entity is all powerful that nothing we can do is out of its power. Can’t have an all knowing, all powerful, all loving, all merciful, all just entity. Those things are very contradictory to one another. The whole thing is just a walking contradiction and bronze age middle eastern ignorance. That’s my opinion.
@@theaviationist.5719 Your opinion is based on a flawed understanding of choice and omniscience. Choice is only relevant to us because we are bound by time and the rules of causality. God is beyond it. Knowing what will happen is only in reference to us because "will" is future tense. Past present and future only apply to creation, not creator. Free will and an omniscient creator are not contradictions. You only think so because you apply time to a timeless being. The fault lies with you.
With God we're seeing and maybe experiencing evil...without God we're still seeing and maybe experiencing evil...but with God, there's meaning and purpose behind evil...this is convincing enough for me to believe that God is man made concept to deal with anxieties and worries, and to create a feeling of hope...So, at one hand, faith and religion help us facing hard times in our lifes..but, at another hand...I think that feeling of hope is false and is not the real solution of evil...I can't find any reason to believe in God, particularly Islamic/Abrahamic God (Allah)...But if miracles as a proof of Allah infinite power is real and I am not just hearing it in some stories about Prophet Muhammad PBUH or other Prophets, but experiencing or at least witnessing it myself) then I would convert to Islam without any doubt or second thought...
You want a miracle let me elaborate Scientifically anything without a scientific explaination is a miracle Everything we see is a miracle Can u seriously explain how this all began how was the big bang caused How anything exists Look u are a miracle its hypocritical to not believe in i just look yourself did this come from nothing I know this might not be enough for you but see that you are a miracle isnt that enough of a sign however I pray u see a miraclous dream or something Hopefully i wasnt annoying have a good day and may you be guided brother
You wnat a miracle? Because especially referring to your last sentence that means you aren't here to reply, rather you are here to find the truth. So do you want the truth? Do you wnat miracles? Because unlike all other prophets allah gave prophet muhammad a long lasting miracle. All the other prophets has a miracle which only happened there and then... Prophet Muhammad's miracle is The quran that remains to this day which has historical linguistic scientific miracles in it. Search them up and don't listen to the non believers. May allah guide you
I don't consider myself and atheist nor a religous person, I just believe in whatever is true, which I agree that I don't know and will probably never know for sure. If there's someone that put us there, then I believe im that, if we are just monkey, then i believe in that too. I mean this universe is so amazingly big, how I can proclaim loud and clear and that I absolutely know the truth without the shadow of doubt, that'd be stupid. Hence why I don't choose any religion, hut rather i'm curious in establishing similaries that immerge in most and taking those similaries as, not truth, but rather for a higher degree of probabilty that this thing is true. Your last point about "why the concept of God was even thought about" really rang with me though and to answer that question I believe that if we could find the origin of the word itself, wether ita Allah of God or Yhwh or whatever the hebrew called it, we could understand what it was meant to mean.
The atheist ''standard for the problem of evil'' may be depressing to religious people, but it is nonetheless more true. It can be more meaningful than the religious view because it should impose action instead of allegory. The ''meanings'' are not equivalent ''myths'' as the speaker suggests. The religious view is truly a myth; based on an imagined supernatural history and promising a divine, just, order. The atheist ''myths'' are as numerous as there are atheists. There is no ''atheist standard'', there is only the absence of a religious one. The only certainty is that a true solution to evil is atheistic by definition. Just like the solution to any other problem.
I Haven't said God created evil but i showed even by the standard of your so call problem evil the existence of God cannot be ruled out The existence of GOD is proofed by the existence of everything
04:00 *Because he is NOT real.* The same reason no religion would survive the "execution test". Which goes like this: Every 20 min a person is allowed to pray to their God to save them. Their God needs to intervene, not other humans or similar BS, otherwise the follower gets executed. Obviously nothing happens and the follower gets executed, but theists will claim he had other plans for that follow or similar BS. The problem is that NOTHING will happen despite that religions followers dwindling down to single digits and when they reach zero. Their "God" would still have done nothing because... hes fictional, made up, not real, Santa for grown up were you only get your "presents" after death so no one can claim shenanigan against the self proclaimed priests and so on.
This completely flies in the face of free will. Because x thing doesn't respond how you think it would respond x things doesn't exist? That's a dumb standard to hold anything to.
The argument at 17min is just laughable, he effectively disproves his own belief in God by equating it to other constructs like human rights and free will. Sorry Sir, but a human with no conception of human rights, love, trust or free will is still 100% human. Also, something can of course be reasoned and deemed factual without resorting to peer reviewed studies. These are all obvious strawmen. Asadullah can be compelling when discussing philosophy, but he is truly amateur when it comes to science.
He is not trying to prove anything in that point. He is showing a double standard. When confronted with the idea of God, people jump to the statement "give me scientific proof of God's existance" while they themselves hold many beliefs where science never even comes in to the discussion. It is my understanding that he was trying to imply that the belief in god is outside the scope of what science can substantiate.
I would say basic reasoning and logic are the best tools. But you are missing the point, the point the brother was trying to convey is that, if you are going to claim that science is required to prove something's existence, you must then be consistent and hold such skepticism for everything else. You cant just pick and choose where you feel it is appropriate. This is where the brother's example at the 17 min mark comes in.
Yes, inconsistent sceptics are wrong is their inconsistency. No one disagrees, The answer is more and better rationality. He is counterpointing a weak and obvious error. I see nothing to advance his faith or discredit science. And, yes, his goal is to do those two things.
@@darealness514 you say his point is to discredit science. I have not seen any indication of this. Could you please prove this claim? It would be easier for me to take you seriously if you did.
6:00 same answer as a Christian would give to that question. Seems like an easy get around without a proper answer. I'm sorry but this just seems like more preaching, same as every religion, answers that don't make sense to questions no1 is asking except religious people. I don't mean to be disrespectful but as far as I can see all religion is a con that only serves to separate us.
@@walid2011_ It is a point I suppose. I live in quite a safe place and I never had a family member murdered so what would I know of evil? Is that evil because I have always thought of it as sickness, as I see it someone would have to be very sick deranged to take a life (in most cases)
For me personally my faith in Allah actually helped me to get over the horrible things in my life.
My faith in Allah is the only reason I continue to accept the misfortunes in my life.
@demi- dogg So humans can create robots with very complicated internal designs and us humans who too have very complicated internal designs apparently are not created? People saying that God doesn't exist is the same as videogame characters saying that nobody created me.
@demi- dogg And have you pondered upon your purpose? And no, you are wrong. We won't enter 'Happyland' simply by saying words. We will enter it at the mercy and pardon of our Creator.
@demi- dogg Please tell me what lies and errors does my scripture have.
@demi- dogg What my Prophet did was something that was done over 1400 years ago at a time where child marriages were common. And besides he married the child and consummated his marriage with her. Even the bible says Moses commanded his men to keep young girls for themselves. The hebrew word used is 'hat-tap' which means young girl Numbers 31:18 and i am not using this to disregard the bible but rather to prove how common it was. And the problems with child marriage was discovered recently so it means before most likely no one found child marriage to be wrong as most likely they did not find a problem in it.
This is one of the most amazing things i’v ever heard that moved me. Especially the last part is quite interesting and it makes a lot of sense. Everyone should ponder on it!
Thanks for uploading this! I've been struggling a lot with religion lately and this helped a bit. I especially appreciated the fact that your arguments weren't lifted as direct quotes from the Qu'ran - when I ask people questions, sometimes I find the lines of argument to be quite circular (i.e. the Qu'ran say X about God, which is true because the Qu'ran is true but the argument relies on you believing the Qu'ran is true in the first place).
Circular reasoning :)
I see where you coming from.
The correct way of puting it in my oppinion is that the Quran is the best proof of Allah since it is the direct revelation that is informing us about him. The Quran establishes it self as proof and does not require nor promote believing in it blindly.
The second "best" proof is reason,
*It can be shows through first principles
*Observing the universe, the laws, the fine tuning.
*Conciousness ..etc
@demi- dogg ur problem is ur projecting ur point of view of religion frm Christianity. Not frm Islam. Also reason needs to be observed this is frm scientism. I clearly see it frm ur comment.
What sort of things did you have difficulty with
MA! Powerful lecture.
That is such a powerful reasoning that got my brain overheating and my heart leaping. So interesting mashaAllah, once again beautiful work thank you so much!
Assalamu alaykum, thanks for the lecture and barakAllah fik for your work. I apologize in advance for the long comment.
You said that the atheist's point of view doesn't solve the problem of evil, yet makes it even worse. The thing is that atheism (at least the one I find consistent and challenging, not the one that makes up its own myths) does not pretend to have an explanation for what's happening but rather refrain to give explanations that are not proven unanimously to be true. One does not want to have a explanation at all cost because not having one is more depressive (here the cost being scarifying one's own standards that determine what is true).
Also, the fact that the most afflicted ones still believe in God and that their faith is the only thing that gives them hope does not make their belief true. In fact there exists people in the same situation but who have different beliefs (and therefore false beliefs from the islamic point of view). Also even though I appreciate the lecture and you brother helping us clarifying the issue, I don't think saying that "those who bring up the problem of evil are trolls on facebook who never experienced it" brings any kind of constructive argument. In fact it could even be counter productive: 1- trolls could very well bring up legitimate questions 2- it's not relevant: I am a muslim who struggles with those issues; it is a deep philosophical question on its own so one should save his energy trying to tackle the heart of the problem. I think the atheism problem comes down to defining what is the process of determining the truth, and this is so challenging given the fact that truth is broadly defined as a fact that can be verified to correspond to reality. While I am writing this I am watching your third part lol, so allow me to continue. The difference between religion and love or religion and beauty, is that love and beauty don't give statements which are meant to stand for the truth. It all depends on what one defines to be love. If one defines love as a specific feeling toward someone, if I have this feeling then love exists. The same thing can be said about faith. No atheist will deny that faith exist. And in fact the rigorous atheist does not have to say "love exists", he will instead say "I feel something inside of myself toward this person" which is nothing but an experimental fact, not something meant to be a universal truth. The issue with religions is that they claim that very precise statements constitute the truth, therefore not believing in them implies being in the wrong (with worse implications like hell etc), while those statements can not be proven by a proposed efficient method of determining truth.
After that, if I understand correctly, you said that the scientific method is itself a belief that is not proven to be true. I would not really agree with that. I would say that the scientific method is a set of standards that has been found to be the most efficient up to that day in making correspondences between claims and actual facts. Any better method is welcome to be tested and its efficiency verified.
Again I apologize for the very long comment. Again those discussions are fascinating to me and crucial so thank you.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
1) I don't quite agree. In a more general context than atheism, I would even say that not proposing an idea when we don't know is humble (if not normal), and this is because the two processes are independent. One can simply criticize an idea because he thinks it is not solid. Now proposing something else requires a whole different reflexion. Having an idea by default is in my sense disastrous.
2) My mistake then, sorry. I was too much expecting a contradiction of atheism, and I thought all you did was giving counter arguments. Then indeed the islamic belief has a pragmatic value, and so have other beliefs. In that sense it doesn't help in refuting doubts.
3) I probably did not take a good angle on that one. Let me try again. Experimental evidences constitute a certain type of evidences. Even if one can not prove that we all die or that love exists (may be one has I actually don't know), the experimental replicable facts upon which a vast majority of people agree are abundant on those two examples for instance. The experimental replicable facts about the existence of God, of the afterlife, upon which most people would agree are far less present. And at the end of the day it is not meant to be proven. A faith by nature is a belief that can not be proven, otherwise it is not a faith anymore, it is an undeniable fact. There lies my main struggle: calling "truth" something not only unprovable, but something that is by nature not meant to be proven.
4) I see your point better now. I think the standard you are referring to is the assumption that there exists a physical world in which we live in, and we all have the same 5 senses to interact with it. I think even though we can not prove that, it is a pretty loose assumption that every reasonable person would agree with. In that framework, an efficient method would be one that makes a correspondence between a statement which meaning we agree upon, and an actual fact that we all value with our senses.
Thank you brother.
Hey Judy. I am a believer too wa lillahil hamd, but I find this subject of defining "truth" extremely challenging and sometimes disturbing.
Andalusian Project Thanks for your response and clarification, I appreciate it.
Very well said, i myself wrestle with these doubts and i have done so for years now. I've read the Quran read hadith books, Philosophy theology and so on. One thing that I have concluded from my research atleast so far is that you cannot prove God or Islam for that matter rationally. Its just not possible, all arguments that preachers and debaters give have solid counter arguments. So if you must believe you should know its not based on rationality.
@@chikiwiki0807 It's based on Rationality. The philosophical arguments have mostly been stalemate. The only thing that has happened that atheists have changed the definition of their beliefs on the paper. Otherwise nothing else. Yes Islamic belief is not empiricism. However that was never claimed. Infact, belief in the unseen is a central tenent in islam.
We have philosophical arguments like Kalam or Contingency or Infinite Regress for which one to reject has to take the extremely implausible possibilities like mereological nihilism.
MashaAllah this brother is really smart
Alhamdullillah by faith believing in Allah subhanaho wa tala helps you in every time you have really something strong to hold on it because you cant hold on something which has no purpose at the end of the day like atheism if you ask them asimple question what is the purpose to wear shoes they will say wel to protect my feet but if you ask them what is the purpose of this life they dont have afair answer
An amazing breakdown on 'thought of doubts' by Asadullah Ali, thanks! Have a query..
'...about a hundred years ago, secular liberal ethics led to genocide' at 13:50 minutes.
I'm curious! How could I find some evidence or is there any you'd provide?
@Yieri Lol you you are such an ignorant prick to be honest, the ottomans did in genocide anyone but actually it was nothing But a bunch of secular liberals who controled the Ottoman Empire after april 1914.
Actually aJew by the name of Emmanuel carrso, who gave the ottoman sultan abdulhamit his resignation paper, ending muslims rule and changing the laws to liberals westerb laws.
@Yieri Okay, you can look what USA has done to the native population of many islands with radioactive testing, they killed millions in the middle east. They keep their puppets in many states.
I hope you will come with more reflections..
Please can I have the secular liberal ethics lead to genocide example
I am not being arrogant over her just sincer request.
@Murmad Man nope, French also. The Algerian Genocide was done by them.
Wow just wow!!!!!!
Jazakallahu Khaira 🔥
What happened to this guy? Don't see him in videos anymore
He left the internet because the Da'wah scene was too toxic, and he wanted to focus on his daughter.
He left the da’wah scene.
He was a necessary voice in the dawah scene. He was balanced and objective. But sadly he left because of the reasons aforementioned. I hope he returns 🙏
I dunno. His experience that 'atheists are generally not persuaded my intellectual arguments' doesnt make sense to me.
As an atheist (with a small dash of agnosticism) my experience is that there really doesnt seem to be much evidence that the universe operates in anything other than by completely natural laws. Although i do feel a strong sense that the universe has a purpose for me - which admit is somewhat a contradiction - but there is no sense that this is some specific entity as put forward in organised religion.
I could be totally self deluded but it really feels pretty cut and dried and not really much to do with emotion. I dont feel happy or sad about it any more than i do upon observing that apples are generally red or green. It is just a fact that seems fairly incontrivertial to me.
I do find irrational arguments for ideology to be somewhat jarring - but this isnt about just religion - i also have the same reaction to unrestrained capitalisation or poor social policy.
That comment at the end about atheist societies not existing is a little odd. I thought that bhuddism and confusicism were two examples - worldviews without god. Last i checked china and japan were doing pretty well. Maybe i didnt understand that properly.
VoicesofSilicon a civilization without belief in the supernatural doesnt exist. Thats what he meant properly. Those countries u listed do belief in something, even if god is out of the picture. But atheism is not believing in anything. A god is a symbol of worship, thats the definition. So even C. Ronaldo is a god to some people. Buddhist and other religion without a superior entity doesnt necessarily mean that there is no god as an idol of worship, something to submit urself to. Atheism should be the contrary to that. So you believing in a purpose will put you out of the “faith” of atheism. Its more like you have no idea what the true purpose is, rather than believing in no purpose. From this point its probably your job to find out ur purpose. If you are willing to spend some time on islam, you will find logical correct answers to the typical questions. The faith of islam also resonates with our common sense as human beings, even if you dont understand certain laws in the beginning, you will find the meaning after learning the reason behind those, at least thats how it was for me. Youre also free to look into any other religion, just make sure to use ur brain and find logical sense behind those. And islam is peaceful. I will tell you that right now before you find any comments/ videos claiming on how isis are the true muslims, which is completely false. There is enough proof in islamic sources to contradict those claims and that lead to a peaceful religion. Dont let that confuse you if you plan on learnig a little bit about islam. Peace
Well kudos man you tried to have an honest interaction without the use of obscene language.
@demi- dogg mention one example of civilization without belief system
Even communism is considered as "belief" system
The problem with atheists, is atheists.
A touch of arrogance perhaps.
But what atheists often say, as you just have, is that they are not convinced by the evidence.
This is just the fallacy of personal incredulity.
And really this makes atheists sound frankly either stupid or dishonest.
For someone to say that the following do not support the idea of a God sounds dishonest:
1.The need for a first cause to matter/energy to avoid having to accept the irrationality of an infinite past
2. Fine tuning
3. The elegance of the Maths that describes reality eg e=mc^2 (Dirac)
4. Consciousness
5. That the universe is intelligible (Einstein)
6. Morality
7. A sentient being has arisen that can understand the universe
8. That the Intelligibility of the universe was possible in graded steps allowing cave men to eventually dicoger the higgs boson and split the atom.
To hand wave all this away and say this in no way supports the idea of a super intelligence behind the universe itself proves God, as this clearly irrational stance proves our God given freedom of choice.
Even if an atheist was not convinced by the argument, they could at least concede the argument has many merits but that in balance they err on the side of non belief. But a total rejection doesn't make sense.
Interestingly, there is az video of a tipsy Hitchens admitting that the fine tuning argument was strong enough for him to have deeply thought about it.
PS of course the universe operates according to natural laws. This doesn't mean it doesn't have a creator.
🗺️
I think the way you posed the atheist position on the problem of evil here isn’t really fair. No one is saying atheism provides a better or happier answer, or that it makes evil go away.
What is being said is that It’s easier to logically reconcile cruelty in a godless wold even if it doesn’t feel as good than it is to reconcile an omnipotent good god who created a world that allows for cruelty.
The “I will take care of it” point you mentioned tries to address the latter portion but it is still unsatisfactory in the sense of “well why have it there in the first place for it to be rectified”. Now this could drag, and probably giving it sufficient discussion would be outside the allocated 7 min scope. Best I’ve heard talk on it was “The Purpose of Life - By Jeffrey Lang”
Dr Jeffrey lang has so far given the best explanation of quranic position to evils and purpose of life. May God bless him.
Logically reconcile cruelty in a godless world? Kindly demonstrate it. Firstly, why is it cruel according to a godless world view? Who says it's cruel? You? An accident of the cosmos and evolution?
And allowing evil is a necessary condition for free will and morality. If everything was good, nothing would be. You imposing your emotional understanding of morality doesn't work so the supposed counterargument of "why have evil in the first place?" is a moot point.
@@MansMan42069 But there is no Free Will in Islam. It is a contradiction to say there is an all knowing entity that created the universe, and that it knows what happened before in the middle and in the future. So basically It’s knows what we all are going to choose to do even before our parents come together to have sex to make us. But at the same time this entity is all powerful that nothing we can do is out of its power.
Can’t have an all knowing, all powerful, all loving, all merciful, all just entity. Those things are very contradictory to one another.
The whole thing is just a walking contradiction and bronze age middle eastern ignorance.
That’s my opinion.
@@theaviationist.5719 Your opinion is based on a flawed understanding of choice and omniscience.
Choice is only relevant to us because we are bound by time and the rules of causality. God is beyond it. Knowing what will happen is only in reference to us because "will" is future tense. Past present and future only apply to creation, not creator.
Free will and an omniscient creator are not contradictions. You only think so because you apply time to a timeless being. The fault lies with you.
@@MansMan42069 ma man
With God we're seeing and maybe experiencing evil...without God we're still seeing and maybe experiencing evil...but with God, there's meaning and purpose behind evil...this is convincing enough for me to believe that God is man made concept to deal with anxieties and worries, and to create a feeling of hope...So, at one hand, faith and religion help us facing hard times in our lifes..but, at another hand...I think that feeling of hope is false and is not the real solution of evil...I can't find any reason to believe in God, particularly Islamic/Abrahamic God (Allah)...But if miracles as a proof of Allah infinite power is real and I am not just hearing it in some stories about Prophet Muhammad PBUH or other Prophets, but experiencing or at least witnessing it myself) then I would convert to Islam without any doubt or second thought...
You want a miracle let me elaborate
Scientifically anything without a scientific explaination is a miracle
Everything we see is a miracle
Can u seriously explain how this all began how was the big bang caused
How anything exists
Look u are a miracle its hypocritical to not believe in i just look yourself did this come from nothing
I know this might not be enough for you but see that you are a miracle isnt that enough of a sign however I pray u see a miraclous dream or something
Hopefully i wasnt annoying have a good day and may you be guided brother
@@muhammadshayanamir6784 Thanks brother
I would recommend you to dig into Sufism.
You wnat a miracle? Because especially referring to your last sentence that means you aren't here to reply, rather you are here to find the truth. So do you want the truth? Do you wnat miracles? Because unlike all other prophets allah gave prophet muhammad a long lasting miracle. All the other prophets has a miracle which only happened there and then...
Prophet Muhammad's miracle is
The quran that remains to this day which has historical linguistic scientific miracles in it. Search them up and don't listen to the non believers.
May allah guide you
I don't consider myself and atheist nor a religous person, I just believe in whatever is true, which I agree that I don't know and will probably never know for sure. If there's someone that put us there, then I believe im that, if we are just monkey, then i believe in that too. I mean this universe is so amazingly big, how I can proclaim loud and clear and that I absolutely know the truth without the shadow of doubt, that'd be stupid. Hence why I don't choose any religion, hut rather i'm curious in establishing similaries that immerge in most and taking those similaries as, not truth, but rather for a higher degree of probabilty that this thing is true. Your last point about "why the concept of God was even thought about" really rang with me though and to answer that question I believe that if we could find the origin of the word itself, wether ita Allah of God or Yhwh or whatever the hebrew called it, we could understand what it was meant to mean.
The atheist ''standard for the problem of evil'' may be depressing to religious people, but it is nonetheless more true. It can be more meaningful than the religious view because it should impose action instead of allegory. The ''meanings'' are not equivalent ''myths'' as the speaker suggests. The religious view is truly a myth; based on an imagined supernatural history and promising a divine, just, order. The atheist ''myths'' are as numerous as there are atheists. There is no ''atheist standard'', there is only the absence of a religious one. The only certainty is that a true solution to evil is atheistic by definition. Just like the solution to any other problem.
your comment is very ignorant
Maxmud Xareed please elaborate
If actually God created evil then he exists ,that cannot be an argument against the existence of God
The existence of GOD is something beyond doubt
What makes you think god created evil? Or that he exists at all?
I Haven't said God created evil but i showed even by the standard of your so call problem evil the existence of God cannot be ruled out
The existence of GOD is proofed by the existence of everything
04:00 *Because he is NOT real.*
The same reason no religion would survive the "execution test". Which goes like this: Every 20 min a person is allowed to pray to their God to save them. Their God needs to intervene, not other humans or similar BS, otherwise the follower gets executed. Obviously nothing happens and the follower gets executed, but theists will claim he had other plans for that follow or similar BS. The problem is that NOTHING will happen despite that religions followers dwindling down to single digits and when they reach zero. Their "God" would still have done nothing because... hes fictional, made up, not real, Santa for grown up were you only get your "presents" after death so no one can claim shenanigan against the self proclaimed priests and so on.
I can see common sense isn’t really you’re strong suit.
@@zackdurant1584 Lol, most athiests lack common sense
Tasin Al-Hassan OOOFFFFFF love this 😂😭
Lobos222 dude this is so funny ya ALLAH do you hear yourself
This completely flies in the face of free will.
Because x thing doesn't respond how you think it would respond x things doesn't exist? That's a dumb standard to hold anything to.
The argument at 17min is just laughable, he effectively disproves his own belief in God by equating it to other constructs like human rights and free will. Sorry Sir, but a human with no conception of human rights, love, trust or free will is still 100% human. Also, something can of course be reasoned and deemed factual without resorting to peer reviewed studies. These are all obvious strawmen. Asadullah can be compelling when discussing philosophy, but he is truly amateur when it comes to science.
He is not trying to prove anything in that point. He is showing a double standard. When confronted with the idea of God, people jump to the statement "give me scientific proof of God's existance" while they themselves hold many beliefs where science never even comes in to the discussion. It is my understanding that he was trying to imply that the belief in god is outside the scope of what science can substantiate.
What then can substantiate a belief in God?
I would say basic reasoning and logic are the best tools.
But you are missing the point, the point the brother was trying to convey is that, if you are going to claim that science is required to prove something's existence, you must then be consistent and hold such skepticism for everything else. You cant just pick and choose where you feel it is appropriate. This is where the brother's example at the 17 min mark comes in.
Yes, inconsistent sceptics are wrong is their inconsistency. No one disagrees, The answer is more and better rationality. He is counterpointing a weak and obvious error. I see nothing to advance his faith or discredit science. And, yes, his goal is to do those two things.
@@darealness514 you say his point is to discredit science. I have not seen any indication of this. Could you please prove this claim?
It would be easier for me to take you seriously if you did.
6:00 same answer as a Christian would give to that question. Seems like an easy get around without a proper answer. I'm sorry but this just seems like more preaching, same as every religion, answers that don't make sense to questions no1 is asking except religious people. I don't mean to be disrespectful but as far as I can see all religion is a con that only serves to separate us.
Only religious people are asking why evil exists? We know why it exists. This is a question that Atheists ask...
Evil, I think, is a religious concept. It doesn't really exist
Setheus not trying to disrespect you but say that again if a person murdered your family
@@walid2011_ It is a point I suppose. I live in quite a safe place and I never had a family member murdered so what would I know of evil? Is that evil because I have always thought of it as sickness, as I see it someone would have to be very sick deranged to take a life (in most cases)
Oh look, another one of those "hurr durr I'm woke" pretentious atheists.
history will repeat
Newton was a believer