Jay Dyer makes Islamic apologist contradict in 90 seconds
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- From: Islam vs orthodox Christianity debate jay dyer / Paul Williams
This approach can be applied as well to:
-all heretical Christian denominations (i.e Roman Catholics)
or
-any religion where the deity is absolutely simple, rendering this deity's attributes meaningless 🔥
Support jaysanalisis.com
I tried a variation on this by telling my wife that just because I'm not bringing out the garbage right now, doesn't mean I don't have the attributes of someone who brings out the garbage.
Didn't work there either.
🤣🤣🤣
If you want to see a contradiction you can see the original debate at these timestamps:
1:38:01 *Brings up Hosea 6:1-2* Jay:"The Jews view those texts as messianic".
1:41:14 Jay: "I have the Jewish study Bible. I've read it. I know that they don't believe that all of those texts are talking about the messiah."
1:41:34 Paul: "Are you not interested what the Jews have to say about this passage?(Hosea 6:1-2)".
Jay: "I know what the Jewish exegesis of that passage is. I know that they DON'T believe its messianic."
@@dubbelkastrull I watched the part again. he was referring to the jsb specifically and said that it doesn't exegete it as a messianic prophesy even on those parts where jews believe it is a messianic prophesy.
@@richardbranson8117 He said the JEWISH exegesis, not "JSB exegesis".
@@dubbelkastrull do jihadis have comprehensive problems from birth?
hey, that was my superchat
Thanks for insisting on the question be answered. Crushed!
@@OrthodoxDefense
If you want to see a contradiction you can see the original debate at these timestamps:
1:38:01 *Brings up Hosea 6:1-2* Jay:"The Jews view those texts as messianic".
1:41:14 Jay: "I have the Jewish study Bible. I've read it. I know that they don't believe that all of those texts are talking about the messiah."
1:41:34 Paul: "Are you not interested what the Jews have to say about this passage?(Hosea 6:1-2)".
Jay: "I know what the Jewish exegesis of that passage is. I know that they DON'T believe its messianic."
@@OrthodoxDefense
you have the power of crushing a can, if you left the can and didn’t crush it, does that mean you don’t have power?
See how the silly understanding of jay is about what (eternally creator) means?.
@@Al-Azdi it means you have no idea if he has the power or not. You assume he has the power that's all. Assuming something which you have no way to prove it. In the beginning itself you're saying you have the power to do x but have you done x before? to come into a conclusion you have the power to do it? Eg: unless a powerlifter lifts 600kg, there is no way to prove a human can lift 600kg. This is also why in Athari creed aka the salafis are against philosophy and logic to understand Islamic allah matter of fact they consider philosophy and logic as haram. I can quote scholars of authority if you want me to
@@Al-Azdithe potential for God to create if he is eternal creator necessities eternal creation. You are suggesting God sat around waiting with the potential to creat but this lands you in a worse situation because time is also created, and thus any potential before time created needs to be enacted on eternally for this attribute to be predicated of God. But simply put, if God has eternal potential to create but doesn’t enact it eternally then in that view God changes. Islam is a mess philosophically (which is the least of its concerns)
The muhammadean cope in the comments is hilarious
hate is pretty funny. It’s easy to sit around and throw racist insults. It makes it easier to block off openly looking at something. With how compelling Islam is I’m not surprised you take such an approach to be closed off to it. It’s funny how Christians will expend all this energy hating on Islam when their own countries have less than 50% Christian populations and atheism is the biggest challenge to their sustenance. At the end of the day if you die on your current path you will die a coward and if I die on my current path I will die a warrior. The evidence for this is you will never say Amen to this prayer but I will: “let us agree to invoke the curse of God on you and your entire family if Islam is true and on me and y entire family if Islam is false.”
You will reply some waffle now that will not include the 4 letter word amen. It’s too easy at this point. Not Jay, not William Craig, not Paul, not a single Christian past or present would ever accept this challenge because they know Christianity doesn’t align with their hearts. Do as you may.
@@TheIndianTree I’m very happy to debate you. But why should I debate you in something when you yourself don’t believe it?
Comments like mine only prove my point. That you guys behind all the fluff will tuck your tails and run away because truthfully you don’t have any faith in what you believe in. It’s just a coping mechanism.
And I don’t blame you. It’s not easy to develop faith in something that postulates a concept of God that is logically incoherent. Nor a belief of Jesus that your own scripture directly refutes in many verses.
Thank you for proving my exact point though you did exactly what I’d expect anyone who replied to do. You can debate or you can prove your convictions in your belief by replying amen.
Even if I gave you all the Earth in return you will never have the courage to simply say Amen but you’ll be happy to bicker with me back and forth. There’s levels to this. Islam is the only thing that can give you any conviction
@@acron6866 how is islam compelling? You're delusional
@@josephsaab7208 youtube won’t let me reply with what I want to reply without deleting my comment because this website is garbage as soon as you send a link. I sent a translation of the Quran that would give a start on what many find compelling. the second chapter is a 15-25 minute read that highlights our core beliefs which you might also find compelling. feel free to send me an email if you’d like.
@@acron6866 I mean dude I've read the quran and it is a joke.. parts stolen from Jewish fairytales and aramaic writings...
What Jay is saying is that if God is the eternal creator, as this Muslim man is arguing, then the Trinity is perfectly plausible because the Father eternally begets the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father.
But the Son and the Spirit are not creatures, but are God...
@@abraham_a Begets and proceeds do not mean create if that's what you and 6 other upvoters thought he was saying.
God eternally being the Creator doesn't mean the creation is eternal. An artist is still an artist when he's not drawing: Al-Tahawi writes in Islamic Creed:
مَا زَالَ بِصِفَاتِهِ قَدِيمًا قَبْلَ خَلْقِهِ لَمْ يَزْدَدْ بِكَوْنِهِمْ شَيْئًا لَمْ يَكُنْ قَبْلَهُمْ مِنْ صِفَتِهِ وَكَمَا كَانَ بِصِفَاتِهِ أَزَلِيًّا كَذَلِكَ لَا يَزَالُ عَلَيْهَا أَبَدِيًّا
He has existed with His timeless Attributes before His creation, which added nothing to His essence that was not already among His Attributes. As His Attributes were before creation, so will they continue forever.
لَيْسَ مُنْذُ خَلَقَ الْخَلْقَ اسْتَفَادَ اسْمَ الْخَالِقِ وَلَا بِإِحْدَاثِهِ الْبَرِيَّةَ اسْتَفَادَ اسْمَ الْبَارِي
It is not because He created the creation that He earned the name, ‘The Creator,’ nor by His making it did he earn the name, ‘The Maker.’
لَهُ مَعْنَى الرُّبُوبِيَّةِ وَلَا مَرْبُوبَ وَمَعْنَى الْخَالِقِ وَلَا مَخْلُوقَ
He has the quality of Lordship without requiring anything to Lord over, and the quality of being the Creator without requiring anything to create.
وَكَمَا أَنَّهُ مُحْيِي الْمَوْتَى بَعْدَمَا أَحْيَا اسْتَحَقَّ هَذَا الِاسْمَ قَبْلَ إِحْيَائِهِمْ كَذَلِكَ اسْتَحَقَّ اسْمَ الْخَالِقِ قَبْلَ إِنْشَائِهِمْ
Just as He resurrects the dead after they first had life, He deserved this name before He brought them to life. Likewise, He deserved the name of ‘The Creator’ before He produced them.
ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ وَكُلُّ شَىْءٍ إِلَيْهِ فَقِيرٌ وَكُلُّ أَمْرٍ إليه يَسِيرٌ لَا يَحْتَاجُ إِلَى شَيْءٍ لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ
This is because He has power over all things and all things are in need of Him. Every matter is easy for Him. He has no need of anything, for ‘there is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.’
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan writes in his explanation:
Regarding His actions, they are eternal in kind and recur as instances. Allah Almighty had the attribute of speech before any instance of speaking, and He
was the Creator before any instance of creating. His attributes of speech and creation are thus recurring actions and so on.
@@dxxnish7170I’d say if an artist never created anything ever then he was never an artist.
@dxxnish7170 an artist isn't an artist before he becomes an artist.
Do muslims who are encouraging him know that he is a Gay i mean a Gay who support islam is like a Turkey who support thanks giving day.
Paul Williams is a pathetic individual who leaves Islam on about an annual basis then returns like a dog to its vomit. After returning like the coward he is, he lies and denies he ever left.
Well ottomans have a vibrant history of homosexuality. I find it more off putting he's white British.
@@KittSpiken hahahahaha
Wait he is gay?!?!?
@@KittSpikenLmfaooo
After memorizing the koran,all the muslim 'philosophers' on TH-cam have apparently memorized the script for contingency argument for Allah;with no regards to Divine simplicity,occasionalism,Ashari vs Athari views on Allah,principle of sufficient reason,necessitarianism, and what not.
What a travesty!😂
@@LIVERZ I did,and boy oh boy his debate with khalil Andani made me feel bad from him.
Both Ashari and Athari are anti-rational it's a part of their creed. The Athari creed, the salafis consider logic and philosophy as strictly haram.
The contradiction i heard in this video is that the islamist states that god in islam doesn’t change and he is an eternal creator. However, before god created the universe he cannot be called a creator. therefore, God changed from not being a creator to being a creator refuting his statement that god doesn’t change.
1) How do you know that God didn't create anything before "the universe"?
2) Exactly when did God become a creator, at the start of the creation of the universe, the middle, the end?
you have the power of crushing a can, if you left the can and didn’t crush it, does that mean you don’t have power?
See how the silly understanding of jay is about what (eternally creator) means?.
@@Al-Azdi You are missing the point
When muslims claim allah is creator they mean he actually created the world, not that he just can do it. If he is the creator in one sense before creation and then in another sense after creation, that would mean allah changed
@@Hidra1isk That means the world is eternal
Jay's question is simple. Not sure why the Muslim is having problems with answering. This literally Philosophy class 101.
Jay is amazing
Being an eternal creator means to have the attribute of *being able to create*
To be fair, Paul conceded he lost the debate. It was embarrassing to watch
Jay don't play !
If you want to see a contradiction you can see the original debate at these timestamps:
1:38:01 *Brings up Hosea 6:1-2* Jay:"The Jews view those texts as messianic".
1:41:14 Jay: "I have the Jewish study Bible. I've read it. I know that they don't believe that all of those texts are talking about the messiah."
1:41:34 Paul: "Are you not interested what the Jews have to say about this passage?(Hosea 6:1-2)".
Jay: "I know what the Jewish exegesis of that passage is. I know that they DON'T believe its messianic."
@@dubbelkastrull Wow.... this must mean he lost the debate! We don't go to the Jews and ask them what the Talmud says or the Rabbi's about some Messianic prophecy. We go to the Church Fathers, who clearly explain those who pointed to the Christ, the Messiah. We don't go to those who rejected their Messiah, and for this, got their temple completely and permanently destroyed.
@@evantheorthodox740 You don't think the temple will be rebuilt?
Ezekiel 45:22
“And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering.”
Ezekiel 46:4
“And the burnt offering that the prince shall offer unto the LORD in the sabbath day shall be six lambs without blemish, and a ram without blemish.”
@@dubbelkastrull You people baffle me. Another one fallen into the trap of dispensationalism, followers of Darby/Scofield. The temple be rebuilt? Why, to re-institute animal sacrifice? This why people need to read Orthodox Christianity, so as not to fall for these new doctrines that have never existed in Church History. So you've been duped too.
@@evantheorthodox740 Can you adress the verses I posted?
i am a christian, and i have a question on this argument. what if a muslim (or another unitarian) says God has the ability to create, but he didn't exercise that ability eternally. how would we respond to that??
Under absolute divine simplicity there isn't a distinction between Gods attributes, actions or essence. IDK that actions would even be an appropriate term to use TBH, anywho that means what God does is exactly equal to his essence, as are all of his attributes, which means he would have to always be creating. Again, this is a problem with absolute divine simplicity as opposed to divine simplicity(which would be the state of affairs you described) Hope this helps.
@@robertanderson9509 Muslims don't believe in absolute Divine simplicity 👀 (they see it as heretical)
When muslims claim allah is creator they mean he actually created the world, not that he just can do it. If he is the creator in one sense before creation and then in another sense after creation, that would mean allah changed
Doesn’t matter because the muslim (paul williams) is saying that allah was a creator before he exercised and did the act of creating
Then he isnt an eternal creator
Somebody enlighten me about what's this about?
Good one 👍
If God exists outside of time, then how does it make sense for him to create in one moment, but not in another? For he by his very nature is not restricted by “moments”?
William Lane Craig has the best answer in my opinion. God existed out of time until he created the world. At which point he entered into time eternally.
@@cartesian_doubt6230 “until he created the world” doesn’t the word “until” suggest that God is apart of time?
@@dylpickle7454 Augustine talks about this in his confessions. I'm not really good as answering it but yes your question does poke a hole.
@@cartesian_doubt6230
William Craig just steals from Alghazali lol
@@cartesian_doubt6230 thats incoherent
Go on Jay 1-0
im kinda lost here can someone explain what they are saying?
Jake says God isn’t the creator in eternity past because creation began at one point, then he became the creator after he created. Paul says God is the creator, past and present, because his attribute of creation is eternally exists in his being, so he is the creator prior to creating.
you have the power of crushing a can, if you left the can and didn’t crush it, does that mean you don’t have power?
See how the silly understanding of jay is about what (eternally creator) means?.
@@Al-Azdi no don't misrepresent haha, no one is saying that if you never crushed the can that means you never had the power to crush the can, rather what jay is saying is that, if you never crushed the can, that means you aren't the eternal can crusher.
@@meshari-yy9gp but having the ability to create doesnt mean being a creator eternally, same way that I have the ability to become a doctor, but I'm not yet a doctor.
@@loadingless3406
A graduate in medicine is a doctor before he gets a job and practices his specialty.
I adhere to divine simplicity, but I was disappointed to see Pauls response... he's read Islamic philosophers and theologians and all, and yet his response is theologically illiterate. All he did was repeat himself and then tried to support his argument by comparing with the Christian God who's supposedly changing. No argument or reasoning at all was put forth by Paul.
Arguments against Islam are based on false assumptions:
1. Muslims don't believe in Divine Simplicity-in fact we argue against it & consider it heretical
2. We believe God's Attributes are Eternal and Uncreated, the manifestations of those Attributes i.e. His Actions are new (eternal in kind but recur in instances) and uncreated (since it intrinsically from God who is uncreated).
3. God been the Creator eternally means He's always had the ability to create, not that He's always had creation. Similarly God eternally being a Speaker means he's always had the ability to speak. If an artist is not drawing, does that mean he's not an artist when not drawing (as an adjective not a verb). And again as Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan states:
Regarding His actions, they are eternal in kind and recur as instances. Allah ﷻ had the attribute of speech before any instance of speaking, and He was the Creator before any instance of creating. His attributes of speech and creation are thus recurring actions and so on.
[Sharh Aqeedah al-Tahawiyyah]
The Attributes of Allah are not an external entity nor are they dependant on an external entity but are attributes of the One and Only. But
akhi , was paul here implying he is believing divine simplicity , also no christian replied to u hahahah
He still has to first create to be a creator. An artist can't say he's an artist till the art is done. Islam is for people with shallow wit.
no the muslim is wrong. Their view when taken to its logical conclusion entails simplicity.
@sameinbari8092
Tawhid al-Asma' wa-Sifat: The oneness of Allah in His names and attributes.
Tawhid, which means the oneness and uniqueness of Allah in Islam, inherently suggests that Allah is indivisibly one, without parts, and beyond human comprehension in His essence.
If God's attributes are the same as His essence (as divine simplicity would suggest), it raises the question of how we can speak of multiple attributes (like knowledge, power, mercy) without implying multiplicity in God's essence.
The Problem of Change and Immutability: If God is simple and unchanging in His essence, how can He interact with a dynamic, changing world? Actions like creation, revelation, and judgment imply change, but if God is simple and unchanging, this raises questions about how such actions can occur without introducing change in God’s attributes. The issue arises from trying to reconcile the belief that God is unchanging attributes with the observation that certain attributes or actions of God seem to be temporal or contingent upon historical events. For instance, if God is described as "the God of Muhammad," this seems to imply a relationship that begins or becomes relevant at a specific point in time - with the birth or prophetic mission of Muhammad. This raises the question: How can an unchanging God acquire a new relationship or a new way of being referred to at a specific point in time? Here is how a muslim might refute that: "in theological discussions about God, the same temporal logic does not apply. God's knowledge and will are seen as eternal and unbounded by time. So, from God's perspective, there is no 'before' or 'after' in terms of His knowledge or relationships. Thus, God being "the God of Muhammad" is an eternal aspect of His divine knowledge," but when taking that to its logical conclusion as far as what that logically entails, it entails Muhammad is also eternally a prophet!
“Regarding His actions, they are eternal in kind and recur as instances. Allah ﷻ had the attribute of speech before any instance of speaking, and He was the Creator before any instance of creating. His attributes of speech and creation are thus recurring actions and so on.”
Here you said this, how do you not recognize what this entails? Eternal actions means they are ALWAYS occurring. By logical necessity, if God is eternally acting on ALL HIS ACTIONS, BY LOGICAL ENTAILMENT HE IS ALWAYS CREATING.
This is like saying, I eat all the time, but actually I don’t, only when I decide to eat that I eat, but I still always eat all the time! This line of thinking violates the law of non-contradiction
@@cm9244
you have the power of crushing a can, if you left the can and didn’t crush it, does that mean you don’t have power?
See how the silly understanding of jay is about what (eternally creator) means?.
@@Al-AzdiThis was idiotic when you spammed it in the other comments. It’s still idiotic now.
Well,well ,well ..perhaps Paul could have said Allah is the eternal creator , because he continously creates reality as it unfolds before us .😅
This becomes a battlefield of definitions. You cant define what is not known. Jesus said you can't add one cubit to your height. We cant expect to grow beyond what he has given us. What little you have can be taken from us . Ecclesiastes chapter 7v16.
I haven’t watched the debate but is Jay trying to point out a contradiction within the muslim paradigm or is he making a statement on the impossibility of God to be an Eternal Creator?
Isn’t it possible to be an Eternal Creator w/o creating eternally?
In the sense of potentia and not losing the ability to create eternally but not necessarily having to create always?
Because that skill always with him. Lol... Skill inside you...
Jay Dyer needs to realise that Orthodox Church Fathers have the same stance as Muslims on God on the dilemma of God being the creator before creation.
In against the Arians Athanasius writes, Anathanasius addresses this dilemma by saying. "They must be told that although God had the power to make, yet the things originated had not the power of being eternal." We Muslims believe the same thing.
Do you believe that God’s volitional attribute of creating, which is uncreated, has a beginning in time-and that this temporality subsists in God’s essence?
Jay go on man
if i create something i will always be the creator of that thing. how can someone not comprehen such simple things
But Allah changed because He wasn't a creator before the creation of the world, so He needs to create infinitely to be a creator.
@@nonnisite_domine why does he need to always create to be a creator? He had the capability of creating a thing before he created anything. If i create something i will always be a creator, I don't need to create anything more to be "more" of a creator
@@shagatashad8063 It is the act of moving from uncreation to creation that causes Allah to change, because He was not a creator before creation. For better understanding, imagine being gifted a car: before receiving the car, you were not a car owner, but once gifted, you become one.
So, He needs to create infinitely in order to be considered a creator; otherwise, it would imply a change in His nature.
@@nonnisite_domine yeah that's literally the worst example. When u receive that car u ACQUIRE that car. When allah creates something he doesn't lose nor acquire anything.
muslims on the streets on theirs carpets: blee heleleleheoehhoe heeh ebebbeebebebeb blebelebelbele habbibibibik habibib, lollolololoollolooloo, abalabalabalbaalbelbelebebele
Dyers arguments are so stupid .. is this what Christianity has become. Seriously this is what Christianity is . Even academic Christian’s don’t even believe in divine simplicity. It fails in every sense.none of Allahs attribute contradict the other. Allah is the creator but he is also the Al-Qaabid, Al-Baasit- The Withholder, The Extender.. when he willed creation, creation came into being. He didn’t go through change, the only reason Jay can’t comprehend this because his false “God” is stuck in time and place. Time and place came into existence by God ! God is not subjected to time and place. If he’s subjected to time and place that means he is limited. This is why Jay is determined not to move from his polytheistic position on the trinity because he knows it fails in every sense
This is an old video. Watch more recent videos by Jay and other EO apologists critiquing Islam. I suggest Jay’s “Open-Forum” streams and Jay’s debate review on his debate vs. Jake Brancatella.
Besides, the God taught in EO is not a static god “stuck in time and space,” as you mistakenly assert. Rather, He is dynamic and interacts with creation in a myriad of different ways.
Also, what’s your creed? Because Salafis, like Jake Brancatella, would disagree with you and argue that time is an "attribute" or somehow intrinsic to God and not a created thing.
Word play
Is this blooging theology. If so he seems like a good sport I've watched some of his videos👍
There is an easy answer to this. Maturidis stipulate that every act of God that has effectuation is eternal. The effect of the act is temporal.
So God is an eternal creator as each act of creation that could ever exist has been "created" from pre-eternity. However, the act itself manifests in a timebound way.
If I create a video game, and determine that a specific scenario will occur in say, 10 hour time, that doesn't mean I didn't create the scenario. I did. It is just manifesting in a timebound reality.
Unless Jay wants to admit that the universe is eternal, I think the Maturidi explanation of Takwin answers his question. We don't need this weird self-creation nonsense of the son proceeding from the father eternally or some other contrived speculations into the essence of God.
I don't like it when Muslim apologist do what Jay does here; that is, interrupt.
All this is just semantics , and people not understanding the meaning of words
Was Jesus God? Yes
Who created Jesus? God
How God created another God? But you know, that's mysterious and shouldn't be asked! 😂
that’s not even what we believe.
Orthodox Christian theology teaches that God The Father & the Son are Co-Eternal.
To say the Son is created by the Father, is a heresy called “Arianism”.
They are two co-eternal hypostases(persons) who subsist in the one Godhead (divine essence) yet are distinct from one another.
@@Georged1y 😆
@@Sunflower-k7r4j ah yes, the typical sunni emoji response.
Actually respond, instead of strawmanning our theology & sending emojis in response
@Nightz LOL
Once upon a time, I was a Christian like you!. But reverted to Islam in the middle of 2017. If you are interested in a debate regarding Christianity, feel free to post your email adress.
@@Sunflower-k7r4j Very sad you converted to Islam.
We pray you return to your true home found in Christ the true God soon. Anyways I do not want to debate an individual, who is apparently a former Christian, yet doesn’t get the basics of Trinitarian theology correct. Or knows what we teach, but willingly straw-mans / or gives misrepresentation what we believe in regarding the Trinity.
How does the christian God eternally create?
God exists outside of time, meaning this attribute cannot cease to be expressed. Does he stop loving, knowing, or being?
@@PETERJOHN101 where is that written in the Bible lol? Or is that another figment of your imagination?
@LEEK okay where is it written then? (Credible source) not that the Bible is a credible source xd
@@MrHabib135 Ecumenical councils and Apostolic-/ Church Fathers
@@MrHabib135 why would you assume it needs to be in the Holy Bible? Where in your quran does it tell you to pray 5 times per day?😂😂 I'll keep waiting for an answer
I do think divine simplicity has issues look at Joe Schmid Ryan Mullins videos on it.
Dreaming
I think that Islam is a false religion. But this argument of Dyer sounds as a sophistry.
@filip m the problem is you don't want to be one with God so you end up going to sleep.
God is outside of time. So him creating something at a certain time can also exist in his being.
@@5000okok _On Daddy Kitten, pleased God did he, said Ambassador of God, link God over him and save, said:
God said: Sons of Adam abuse time, and I am time, by my hand is the night and the day_
Source:
Hadith
عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ:"قَالَ اللَّهُ: يَسُبُّ بَنُو آدَمَ الدَّهْرَ، وَأَنَا الدَّهْرُ، بِيَدِي اللَّيْلُ وَالنَّهَارُ"رواه البخاري (وكذلك مسلم)
On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
Allah said: Sons of Adam inveigh against [the vicissitudes of] Time, and I am Time, in My hand is the night and the day (1). (1) As the Almighty is the Ordainer of all things, to inveigh against misfortunes that are part of Time is tantamount to inveighing against Him. It was related by al-Bukhari (also by Muslim).
Hadith no. 4,
Forty Hadith Qudsi
@Malik-ld6qn
you have the power of crushing a can, if you left the can and didn’t crush it, does that mean you don’t have power?
See how the silly understanding of jay is about what (eternally creator) means?.
I don’t understand the point Jay was making. I don’t know why he presupposes that someone could ONLY have an attribute AFTER he manifests it through an action rather than having the condition for someone to have an attribute is to have the CAPABILITY and WILL of manifesting it regardless of IF or WHEN it ever gets manifested. If something is there, it’s there and that’s that.
You clearly are misled...... God wasn’t always eternally creating, especially before the existence of time, space.... Muslims say he is the eternal creator ! It’s quite simple
@@CyprusHot Muslims aren't saying that Allāh is eternally creating. But He had to be eternally CAPABLE of creating.
But if you wanna see a contradiction then you can check out the original debate at these timestamps:
1:38:01 *Brings up Hosea 6:1-2* Jay:"The Jews view those texts as messianic".
1:41:14 Jay: "I have the Jewish study Bible. I've read it. I know that they don't believe that all of those texts are talking about the messiah."
1:41:34 Paul: "Are you not interested what the Jews have to say about this passage?(Hosea 6:1-2)".
Jay: "I know what the Jewish exegesis of that passage is. I know that they DON'T believe its messianic."
@@dubbelkastrull you just proved how stupid you are. Attacking Christianity doesn’t help Islam.
The Quran is eternal yet exists with the eternal Allah ? That’s shirk ..... and yes if his attribute is creator then he is eternally creating .... your religion is false and your prophet was a child molester .. repent
@@InescapableRealityOfficial “could have likely”? No. God created everything including time, space, matter etc. Primordial matter isn’t eternal. You try to elevate your human ideas of what is eternal upon God.
@@CyprusHot Muslims says that the Word of God is eternal, not a physical copy of the Quran.
Who said that that The Word of God isn't God?
The Bible says The Word was With God and was God.
You haven't proven why God would've had to necessarily eternally create.
And how can you call me stupid if you believe Jesus was *caused* without a beginning?
And the energies exist eternally with God, yet separate? That's what we can call shirk.
You don't get it, God is limitless in His attributes in that there is no limit to what He can do and how much He can give etc. 😑 your argument is weak
Ok jihadi
Are the attributes of God himself or something other than himself.? Do the attributes of God get in the creation?
You cannot have the attribute if creator when you didnt create anything yet. Obviously. So it is nonsense to say that allah is an eternal creator. He is only creator once he starts to create
1. Sunni Muslims deny divine simplicity.
2. God does have to express an attribute in order for Him to posesses it.
3. Cope and seeth.
Very fast withe expected delete.. Very much in the spirit of truth and chrustian charity
I’m a track runner, does this mean I am always running track? No, it means I have the attribute of a track runner. God being an eternal creator means that God always has the attributes of the ability to create. We human persons are creators from conception, does this mean we are always creating? No of course not. God is infinitely merciful and just also, is he always administering mercy and justice? No that would be absurd, mercy is by definition a negation of justice. The ability to administer justice and mercy are infinite though.
if you are not running track, how can it be said that in the moment you are not running track that you have the attributes of a track runner?
@@enchantingamerica2100 Because I am a track runner with the capacity to run track, it is nonsensical to suggest I’m suddenly not a track runner once my race finishes
@@lyricalmike7162 then that’s a divided essence. we are divided beings but how is God’s essence divided into a potential creator and actual creator if he is one essence?
@@enchantingamerica2100 Loaded question, you’re just asserting that is a divided essence without actually justifying it.
@@lyricalmike7162 It’s not a loaded question. an eternal actualizer cannot exist without an eternal creation. creation is not eternal, thus eternal actualization is not part of God’s essence.
If you want to see a contradiction you can see the original debate at these timestamps:
1:38:01 *Brings up Hosea 6:1-2* Jay:"The Jews view those texts as messianic".
1:41:14 Jay: "I have the Jewish study Bible. I've read it. I know that they don't believe that all of those texts are talking about the messiah."
1:41:34 Paul: "Are you not interested what the Jews have to say about this passage?(Hosea 6:1-2)".
Jay: "I know what the Jewish exegesis of that passage is. I know that they DON'T believe its messianic."
So are you going to join the discord and confront us like a man? Or are you gonna stay in the youtube comment section? Why don't you people ever have a backbone and talk to Jay directly?
@@ossifrage6828
So will "any of you" respond to my points I brought up?
@@dubbelkastrull that someone made a minor mistake about a passage in the minor prophets? What do you want us to do worship you? How about you grow a pair of balls and talk to us on the server? Jay does open debates once a week for 2 to 3 hours yet you guys never show up. So why don't you just confront jay directly if you're so sure of yourself.
@@dubbelkastrull discord.gg/orthodoxchristian stop hiding in the comment sections and grow a pair of balls
@@ossifrage6828 every time jay posts the discord link and says hes doing an open QnA / Debate, they NEVER show up hahaha
You didn't make him contradict...lol. You either didnt understand his argument or are pretending to be ignorant This is an old senseless argument that we've heard a million times...i cant believe u guys are stuck on that. The argument is silly for several reasons: You cant have the creator and creation exist at the same time (which is basically what you're implying that the Creator can only be referred to as "eternally" creator if he has a created subject. This is why we say "He has ALWAYS had those attributes even though he didnt have any subjects to apply those attributes to (such as love, mercy, judgement or anything)." He also has the knowledge of future even when that future hasnt happened yet. Just because Christians cant make sense out of how a man can be god and how God can be finite and infinite at the same time, it doesn't mean you guys can resort to cheap semantics and think you proved us wrong by clipping a small portion of an entire conversation. This is silly lol...waste of a good minute of my life!
@@FirstActuality Semantics, absurdity, stupidity. This is all what you guys have stooped down to with these senseless arguments. I have zero interest in responding back to Christians anymore. I have lovely discussions with Jews (even though they don't agree with me and I don't agree with them), but Christians...man o man, its impossible to talk to someone who thinks there is such a thing as a squared circle. Your belief system is all over the place, there is no consistency and its frustrating being on the other side when you can't get the person to even admit something simple as 2+2 = 4. So thanks for the response...but I will take a pass on this one. Have a great day!
@@FirstActuality I object to pure and utter stupidity and dishonesty. I object to ignoring clear and explicit verses and picking out vague verses.
@@fawadkhan1884 That's a dodge.
@@CHURCHISAWESUM more like coping
@@FirstActuality “being a creator is essential to God’s nature”
Im not sure if this is true, I believe God wills creation not out of necessity, but out of free choice
Also, if God exists outside of time, he can eternally be the creator without creation itself being eternal, as creation is restricted by time
By this guys logic. How is Jay a debator if he is not debating right now as we speak? He needs to be in a constant state of debating. What a lame.
you cant be something until you do it silly
was Jay eternally a debater before be debated for the 1st time, or did he become one after his first debate?
@blessedmikko Hmm.. let's stick to this topic of silly then. If God created time, and time is constantly going, then God is always creating. A chuckle didn't refute the response that was given. God is BEYOND time.
Jay is created. He has a beginning and an end. God is not created. God does not have a beginning or an end. Hence, why Muslims say God is knowledgeable, but his knowledge is not like our knowledge. God is merciful, but His mercy is unlike our mercy.
@@gambitmurdak4427 so then, dont use Jay as an example that is comparable to Allah.
@@gambitmurdak4427 no, that doesnt work, because there was a 'time' where the construct of time was not and only had existence in the divine logoi
@@blessedmikko Then Jay can't compare his attributes and limitations to God. Thank you for clearing that up.
Ur god died on cross matthew 7:22LORD LORD
Your god is fake😂😂 my God did die on the cross and he defeated satan by doing so. He also went into hades, preached the gospel, ressurected and ascended into heaven. Then damned mohammed the fake prophet into hell for all of eternity
Then came back 3 days later
@@AlkahestHD and ascended to the heavens 🙌 meaning he beat death making him eternql
@@jamesdownes3284 He had to beat death? So death was dominating him before?
If name 'Creator' is truly God's then it must have been His eternally, lest we confess creation added something to its Creator. (Absurdity)
I would agree that He must be eternally Creator because He eternally possess His creative Energy (which is also eternal but DOES have it's beginning in time as stated in the Triads), regardless of whether He is creating or not. The distinction between Essence and Operations ultimately lies with God being both Incomprehensible (Essence) AND Knowable (Through His Energies).
I am said to be a worker, even if I'm not working each moment of each day. #PaleoPalamism
You aren’t an eternal worker
you have the power of crushing a can, if you left the can and didn’t crush it, does that mean you don’t have power?
See how the silly understanding of jay is about what (eternally creator) means?.
This was the dumbest debate I've ever witnessed. Lmao. God's the eternal creator so he must be eternally creating things at all times?! I win. You lose. What are you? 5 years old. Jay has no business debating. Showed zero courtesy or ability to have an actual debate. Jay should just say I'm right and your wrong....look everyone... see I won.
Jay is right though. God was not a creator at some point in his life because he is not eternally creating anything. There's a difference between an eternal creator and a creator that's eternal.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl fighting over semantics about where you put the word eternal before or after is so ridiculous. This is like watching kids fight over which superhero would win. No one wins. They are debating imaginary things.
@@grimloki3107 That one-word difference connotes a substantial change in meaning though. Everybody agrees God is eternal. Everybody agrees that God is Creator. But a Muslim cannot diss Christianity for introducing "change" in God's nature by adding a human nature to the Son when the same sort of "change" happened when God became Creator of the universe.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Not everyone agrees God is eternal or the creator. Or, that God even exists. No one can agree on what or how God perceives things. No one agrees on how to interpret the bible. The whole point is these people are fighting over how they believe they're right about how they believe in their own imaginary friend.
@@grimloki3107 So you're just stupid? "People disagree God not real"
Get a grip dude
God is creator by his nature
God is Merciful by his nature
God doesn't need to become man to prove his attributes like pagan Christianity
LA ILAHA IL ALLAH MUHAMMAD UR RASUL ALLAH
Islam is one pagan religion and I realize this even more easily when I know the greatness of orthodoxy
lmao your prophet a slave-owning child Moe lester.
Go kiss your pagan head of Venus
@@funkmaster5669 cope. Your entire church iconography and rituals are pagan
@@funkmaster5669 ortodoxity is the worst when you came to paganism even in Christianity
Call him allah or arrahmaan to him belong the most beautiful names.
Jay could refine the technique, it’s abrasive and off putting in a non internet blood sport setting.
If you want to see a contradiction you can see the original debate at these timestamps:
1:38:01 *Brings up Hosea 6:1-2* Jay:"The Jews view those texts as messianic".
1:41:14 Jay: "I have the Jewish study Bible. I've read it. I know that they don't believe that all of those texts are talking about the messiah."
1:41:34 Paul: "Are you not interested what the Jews have to say about this passage?(Hosea 6:1-2)".
Jay: "I know what the Jewish exegesis of that passage is. I know that they DON'T believe its messianic."
No he doesn’t. Milk and honey doesn’t always work
He’s a child
@@brians7100 I never heard a child so thoroughly articulate his position and point out the incoherencies of his opponents.
imagine god isnt real,
doesnt this conversaion just look like two temporary beings conflicting for space and resources?
this is more about power than truth...
and truth is still about power
especially when it comes from something so limited in power in a world beset with power struggles even for mere rest and quiet one has to struggle and conflict just to occupy the space they are in..
this is no unvisere of a God,
a creature perhaps, but a human being?
no way
perhaps a bizarre time-monster
for whom all creation is a shadow of.
but no passionate forgiving father..
no culture haven
no good, no god.
such industry of goodness is a vehicle for an ever-shrinking prison to dwindle the souls imagination.
like the tobacco industry.
the cigarette was the means for the addictive substance.
it looks simple on the surface, and started like that.
then it became something far more sinister
and i question the morals of any god that empowers such wicked cruelty such as slavery, and arbitrary authority
Tip harder
I feel sorry for anyone who actually believes what you put as the title on the video, how is that a contradiction? I guess that’s what happens when you believe in a (false) god who can die, By the way guess who the only true God is according to Jesus in the bible?
John 17:3. And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
That’s right! The father! Even the biblical jesus is against you trinitarian pagans 😂.
May The God guide the sincere people. God willing.
in the same verse it's said "and Jesus Christ" - and that was spoken in the Holy Spirit, so the Trinity. this "AND", spoken in the very first time of the Revelation of the second Hypostasy specifically proves how important the Holy Trinity was for One Who spoke. It's clear that the Son spoke about Himself the most humble way, but the Spirit did not allow Him to omit His name completely, after mentioning the Father. The Father is God and the Son is True God".
So God is eternally the creator, but creature is not eternal 🥴😂
If God is eternally the creator then what was he creating eternally when there was not creature😂
Only a prophet? John 17,5 And now glorify me, Father, in you alone with the GLORY WHICH I HAD IN YOU BEFORE THE WORLD WAS CREATED.
John 5:20 For a father loves his son, and shows him everything he does; and he will show him greater works than these so that you will be amazed. John 5:21 FOR JUST AS THE FATHER RAISES THE DEAD AND GIVES LIFE, SO ALSO THE SON WILL LIVE WHO HE WILLS.
John 5:25 Truly, truly, I say to you: the hour is coming and has already come, WHEN THE DEAD WILL HEAR THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD, AND THEY WILL LIVE.
John 5:22 For the Father judges no one, but ALL JUDGMENT IS GIVEN TO THE SON, John 5 ,23 THAT ALL HONOR THE SON AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER.
Leak abduls
Actually paul got a point the issue with Jake's method of thinking is logical methods where the human mind is used to understand the essence of God that's the root of all problems
Jake doesn’t have a point even in logic. You may have a title of something before executing the implication of that title. For example, a person may be referred to as a author prior to commencing his work as an author, or a doctor prior to treating a patient.