Atheism & Evidence For Existence Of God? | Mufti Abu Layth

Taken from Mufti Abu Layth’s weekly livestream, Meaning with MALM #15 | Life Chose You! : • Life Chose You! | Mean...

[@realtalk73760]

I dont know of any other islamic scholar who does a live stream with atheists and behave properly! Jazak Allahu khayran

[@_m_i_k_]

Because may be he is rational thinker and asking question is not wrong because Allah has given us this amazing mind to think and ask.

[@devalto3829]

There are many. Sheikh Uthmann ibn Farooq for example

[@BrRizzy1]

@@maalikserebryakov ??

[@alfianbanjaransari4096]

Misbehaving would render Mufti to be NAUGHTY NAUGHTY

[@jenny-DD]

I've done that

[@itsarqum8086]

Mufti saab is doing a good thing by bringing an atheist on the show and discussing the existence of god. I wondered what Mufti's response would be to an atheist's questions about religion.

[@akeemzaman8645]

What a interesting conversation. I learn something new every time.

[@alexrebellionbrigade2257]

It is a crime that this video only have 3.5k views !! Cheers bro for an outstanding scientific demonstration of Islamic teachings to an atheist !! I am sure MAT Would be dwelling for many moons about consciousness and where it will lead him to :) May Allah guide all of us !! Amen

[@MuftiAbuLayth]

jzk for your kind words May Allah always bless you & keep you smiling 🙌🏻❤

[@mohammedilyas5934]

Good stuff mufti.. keep bringing people together..

[@celtislam]

Wonderful !

[@twister6910]

Mufti Saab, on this 29th night of Ramaḍān 2022 I express my appreciation & love for you upon your journey which Allah the most wise has tasked you with. You are truly an inspirational being. BaarakAllahu feek. Aameen

[@_m_i_k_]

Keep the good work going, May Allah help us all

[@kingky2002]

Love this

[@mohamedkoroma3539]

My brother you are a phenomenon. I always remember you in my prayers for long life and good health. what an excellent conversation. I know you will bring a lot of atheists into our deen. please try to join Dr Hany Achar of Marvelous Quran. I know and have the strongest conviction that you guys will revolutionize the Tafsier of the Quran to solve the long unanswered questions in the existing Tafsire. May Allah continue to guide and bless you and family.

[@obaidulhaque7687]

Nice word brother , As myselft wish One day Mufty would think about Dr hany,s ( organic quranic methodology ) what I feel true essence of Quran, and time to reflect to Quran as Base of humanity with Quranic reasoning .

[@basit730]

A very unique understanding 👏

[@homeboysudaka5629]

Mufti 🐐 GOAT

[@umermalhi7850]

Amazing!

[@nourhelel2873]

Asalaam aleikom mufti how are you and your family doing? InshaAllah good and well.....i want to thank you for your all knowloge you sharing us....much love from the Hage, Holland

[@consolefragging9392]

Good talk

[@epic7716]

Really want to meet you ….Sir MALM….

[@fasalalbana6579]

Well done mufti, you're dooooing it. If I may add my two cents. Alhamdulilah I am a clinical psychologist. I have always used the following example to convince others of the existence of Allah..... Ask anybody if they are intelligent then ask them if they can see, feel, touch or taste their intelligence which nobody can of course, so similarly that's how Allah exists. You know he is there but you cannot see, feel, touch him. Just a simple food for thought. Keep going mufti, Allah preserve you my brother.

[@_m_i_k_]

Intresting, but how do you find someone intelligent? there could diffrent parameters/rules for diferent people. Even if you set some universal parameters which can led us to the evidence of intelligence, it can not be same for God. It is subjective. Belief led us to God not fact. (I'm just being rational thinker here and thinking because God has given us this abilty to think, ask and explore.)

[@Cassim125]

@@_m_i_k_ Why cant it be the same for god though ? You should research the argument from reason. If intelligence has a central source why cant it apply in a perfect form to the source but only imperfectly to humans. Think of all the traits of intelligence ie critical thinking, divergent thinking, lateral thinking, creativity, vision, resourcefulness, insight, intuition, wisdom, experience, memory, skill, empathy, self awareness, metacognistion, etc

[@_m_i_k_]

​@@Cassim125That central source is our mind, different type of people has different type of intelligence (also some people don't have that blessing) so people create/understand the philosophy of religion according to their intelligence.

[@AbdulAli-ce4np]

I have learned alot of things from mufti abu Saab

[@gowdsake7103]

How to talk without saying ANYTHING ?

[@kiruagon1839]

Man, i finally found someone who understands things as I do. I arrived at the certainty of GOD through consciousness as well. I don't need any other evidence, BEING is my evidence, and it is as clear as day. I see that maybe you also have researched non-duality since you are using some terms from there. Baraka Allah fik akhi :).

[@naeidshabir361]

Aslam brother keep up the good work naughty naughty naughty

[@VerdantJedi]

Satcitananda...

[@asiemmalik736]

If someone could provide time stamps, in particular when the atheist decides to string together enough words to form a sentence ???

[@OAB9282]

Nice conversation. Matt is very interested in Mufti. Where does this interest come from? Why would somebody from the other side of the world be interested in some random Muslim speaker on the internet? Isn't that the inner voice guiding one

[@Cassim125]

hes one of the few decent chaps thats open minded and converse with different types of people.

[@OAB9282]

@Massive Hero Good and wise words from you too. It takes a lot of courage to stay open minded indeed.

[@haroon420]

Mufti has never addressed the window breaking thugs issue again. I think he should. And he should also give an update on any police activity that is going on against those responsible. They shouldn’t be let off!

[@superchargedhelium956]

I actually admire that he hasn’t turned it into a personal feud like most of the Dawah youtubers

[@BrRizzy1]

The best cognitive approach to dealing with trauma is to put it in a box, shut the lid and move on. That's why I come across a lot of people becoming traumatised by psychodynamic psychotherapy and counselling that digs into the past. And that is why CBT is such an effective therapeutic approach.

[@Monotheist137]

Can we change terms while we debating with atheists about this? Instead the term God, we could use term Creator. Term God is understood diffrently through the cultures, while using term Creator puts very clear ground what are we speaking about.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

And are you asserting there to be a creator?

[@BrRizzy1]

@@theoskeptomai2535 it is an 'assertion' that helps a lot of people. I don't see the point of trying prove the existence of an Essence that is beyond space and time. Which is what we believe. "it is always going to be a question of faith". @Theo, you quite rightly assert that there is no evidence that anything or any phenomenon is dependent on 'a god'. Rather, everything seems to be eventually explainable through scientific discoveries or rational theories. Depending on the 'God of the gaps' is just opening up a faith to fail. To marvel at something (eg consciousness) is not the same as believing that this must prove God's existence. In the end, it was through the Qur'an and the living example of Muhammad that people became Muslim. And that's what reinforces my faith. Marveling at the universe also helps even if it isn't a rational proof "I marvel at You. Not without purpose did You create all this," is how the Qur'an describes scientists.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@BrRizzy1 So, are you asserting there to be a creator?

[@BrRizzy1]

@@theoskeptomai2535 Yes I believe so. Sorry!

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@BrRizzy1 And for there to be a creator, there would _necessarily_ have been a creation. Would you agree? Yes or no.

[@zakyzayn5361]

Not-being is being, friends; And existence is nothing, friends. Selflessness is drunkenness And drunkenness is nothing, friends. Nothing is everything and everything nothing, friends. Real worship of Truth is to be nothing And this nothing is the real Truth! ~ Shah Niaz

[@theoskeptomai2535]

I believe that quote won the 1978 Load of Bullshit Word Salad Award!

[@aqilshamil9633]

@@theoskeptomai2535 nothing don't actually exist

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@aqilshamil9633 ?!?

[@VerdantJedi]

As a sufi, I can understand this perfectly. But for others this could be challenging to grasp...

[@zakyzayn5361]

@@VerdantJedi yes but should avoid calling ourselfs calling Sufis coz shaykh humza once said a real sufis is always humble and he or she never says they're sufi because it's matter of the and Allah swt knows the best

[@theoskeptomai2535]

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

[@noumanqureshi8489]

You're right about being curious by default. The answer to this would have multiple parts. The process would still be organic 🤷🏽‍♂️ A badly put Summary of the answer: this metaphysical world (including time and all matter known by man in the cosmos) is claimed to be God's creation. Consciousness is a perfect example like other unsubstantiated phenomenon like "feelings" etc... this capacity to innovate and perceive

[@mohammedcharlesmurphy2837]

Pretty solid position I must admit. However, how do you deal with the "first cause" argument? The first cause of all existence, by its very definition, is an exceptional event not bound by any scientific laws which can only succeed it. That first cause, resulting in the rest of existence, including everything you have ever observed could be known as God. Extrapolation, backwards and forwards (in time and space), of a demonstrable and repeatable phenomenon is a part of the scientific method. Thus the first cause, although not personally observed by either you or me, is in fact logically deducible. The question then becomes whether this first cause is necessarily sentient. I would argue so, by asking WHY did the first cause happen? Since there is no reason why it must happen, and there was definitely a state in which it hadn't happened, then unless it itself is sentient, then it should just NEVER happen. In other words, under normal circumstances, nothing should exist. Take any subsection of existence, do nothing to it, and nothing will change within it. Nothing + Nothing = Nothing Something + Nothing = (identical) Something Thus by further deduction, the fact that the first cause (i.e something) did happen, necessitates that it must be able to at least make the decision to happen or not to happen. While I can't argue further than that, to me that is a satisfactory reason to at least be a monotheist.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@mohammedcharlesmurphy2837 There is no evidence nor any _sound_ argument that suggests our cosmos had a first cause.

[@mohammedcharlesmurphy2837]

@@theoskeptomai2535 I'm very surprised and taken aback by your response. The "first cause" argument is solid. The argument for a "first cause" is based on "proof by contradiction". We start of with the opposite alternative which is that there is no "first cause". In other words, every action has a causal action. Then you simply consider this very moment right now and ask yourself, how many causal actions have occurred to arrive at this very moment? Based on the premise, there must be an infinite number of causal actions leading to this very moment since no moment can be considered the "first". Since you can not traverse an infinite number of moments, then we can never have reached this very moment. But since we have, we have a contradiction, thus the premise is wrong. This is not a new argument that I just invented right now. Its a well known deduction that has been around for millennia. So I'm surprised you are not familiar with it. The deduction of quantum physics is based on the same structure of argument. The idea being that you can't have an infinite number of sub-points between any two points (in space and time) otherwise it would be impossible to traverse those two points since it's impossible to traverse an infinite number of sub-points. This led to the conclusion that there had to be a smallest "quantised" amount of anything (time, space, energy etc). So this is not a "theory" I dreamed up in my own head. This is indeed very much part of the scientific method. I'm not saying that the "first cause" argument proves the "Islamic God". I was very clear about the depth to which the argument could be taken. I think you should reflect again on what I've said.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@mohammedcharlesmurphy2837 No. Every First Cause argument I have encountered has not read a valid conclusion from sound premises or has presented premise that are known fallacies. If you would like to present _and champion_ such an argument in syllogistic form, I will gladly examine the argument with you.

[@Cassim125]

There is no such thing as an atheist. Its just a term to define those who dont believe in religion. Everybody worships some sort of god. God is the values you value best. For some their god is money, fame, status, capitalism, pleasure, others kindness, altruism, morality etc & for others it is worshipping religion/dogma (not god) Even in religion god is associated as being literally love, justice, mercy incarnate. Jordan peterson understands this well when he says there are people who say their atheists but their actions prove otherwise. This view is so complex that very few ppl can understand it. They see the world in a binary way of atheist - theist

[@breakbeat9229]

But then there also is no such thing as a theist? It's just a term that defies someone who beliefs in god?

[@petraravn5421]

An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in gods or other supernatural things. The simple fact that an atheist has interests, values, emotions etc. does not change this.

[@Cassim125]

@@petraravn5421 you just proved what I said in my 2nd paragraph

[@Cassim125]

@@breakbeat9229 nothing more than labels for the sake of convenience. Did you think its so simple so black and white. This is what spirituality is all about. Getting rid of black and white notions.

[@MonstrulSpaghetelorZburatoare]

@@Cassim125 I get your point, but you're kinda redifining the concept of atheism here, and the concept of God. An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in supernatural entities (as literal, actual beings). The term of "god" is used in a certain way in our language, but now you use it with a different meaning (like Jordan Peterson does). If the concept of god means what you're describing, then sure, there are no atheists, there are just non-religious people. But if we use this concept in the way that people usually understand it, then atheists are definitely a thing.

[@centi50s]

Even scientists cannot prove there is no God

[@theoskeptomai2535]

Scientists are not endeavoring to prove _anything._ They seek to establish, through scientific methodologies, _explanations_ as to occurrences of _observable_ phenomena. Enroll in any science course and educate yourself!

[@manobik]

Even scientists can not prove there is no ghost- you do sound like this.

[@MonstrulSpaghetelorZburatoare]

Even scientists cannot prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster

[@gowdsake7103]

What UTTER WAFFLE as usual from a theist a LOT of words with zero content