Is This The Best Argument For God's Existence?

In this short video, we present Ibn Sina's famous "Proof of the Truthful", one of the most celebrated arguments for the existence of God ever put to paper.
Taken from my full video on Ibn Sina: • Ibn Sina (Avicenna) - ...
Check out my linktree for socials, music & more: linktr.ee/filipholm
Support Let's Talk Religion on Patreon:
/ letstalkreligion
Or through a one-time donation:
www.paypal.com/paypalme/letst...
Also check out the Let's Talk Religion Podcast: open.spotify.com/show/0ih4sqt...
Music by:
Filip Holm
Source:
Inati, Shams (translated by) (2014). "Ibn Sina's Remarks and Admonitions: Physics and Metaphysics: An Analysis and Annotated Translation". Columbia University Press.
Marmura, Michael E. (translated by) (2005). "Avicenna: The Metaphysics of The Healing". University of Chicago Press.
#god #philosophy #islam

[@LetsTalkReligion]

This is part of a larger video about Ibn Sina which you can find here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jnmTiqqphLiorrs

[@elmostaphaaboulhamid3316]

It seems to me that emergence destroys the argument of the necessity of a unique necessary cause .

[@arianagrandaremix8858]

this argument is based on inductive knowleduge and thus lets refute it by its essence 1- we say every contingent thing has a cause based on our induction but if we are precise. every contingent thing we observed has a contingent cause so if I say that every contingent thing has a CONTINGENT cause that would be equally if not more accurate and this alone turns the argument on it's head 2- necessary existence poses a model collapse . god has libertarian free will so he cant be necessary 3- god can be imagined to be otherwise . since they define everything that can be otherwise as contingent thus that would render their sky daddy also one . i can imagine an omni dreadful spiteful god as much as they define an omni loving one .both have equal evidence 4- why cant the universe be necessary ? and ik most ppl will point at stars and planets etc but all of that is matter rearranging it's self. so that's really not an argument . besides , one has to prove that time , space and the universe had a beginning to place any weight 5- consciousness can not be none physical . demonstrate a mind without a brain or else its fiction 6- assuming god butchers occams razor

[@alcubz2622]

I'm disappointed that you removed comments that simply doesn't agree with the argument

[@LetsTalkReligion]

@@alcubz2622 I don't remove comments.

[@arianagrandaremix8858]

@@LetsTalkReligion mine wasnihed tho lol

[@RealKengeki]

Bro was describing node modules and dependencies, truly ahead of his time

[@arctan2]

true

[@aabidsofi19]

😂

[@codewithrohaan]

Damn @RealKengeki I never thought I'd find another with such similar interests

[@Roxve]

I hate rust crates

[@writerartist6306]

Brainy Smurf voice- "But Papa Dawkins said... Season 2, Episode 206, blah blah blah..."

[@greatfate]

Bro was using graph theory, proof by induction, proof by contradiction and all of that way before it was even formulated 🗿

[@bthanb1223]

Not really lol lots of philosophers used those techniques before Ibn Sina

[@greatfate]

@@bthanb1223 lmao fair enough

[@ahmadsulieman5092]

These are ancient techinques, ibn sina is not that acient

[@wliaputs]

It has been that way since Socrates and Plato

[@uxoriousss]

Say God is one, God the self sufficient, he does not give birth nor was he born (has no beginning or an end) and there’s no one or thing equal to him. - Surah Al-IKhlas. Truely amazing how this chapter even fits our limited philosophy very well.

[@XxOursChannelX4875]

And yet these pagans and atheist dislike this simple concept of One God,Genderless,And immortal And even mocking him as skydady,which is nonsense,God is Above anything and they compare him to a dady? beacuse he use he/him pronouns in English?and They also mocked him for being stritch about Creation,like he the one who created us and it make sense us to follow his laws

[@LailaAhmed-re5co]

I was charmed by this surah when I was a child. It was so clear back then and still is now.

[@uxoriousss]

@@LailaAhmed-re5co Surah AlIkhlas and Ayatul Kursi never fail to touch the heart of a person seeking the truth about Allah.

[@Team_GreenII]

Whats the wisdom behind jahannam ?

[@uxoriousss]

@@Team_GreenII The only way to have absolute justice is to have heaven and hell and an afterlife, if the case is otherwise death is nothing but an escape to evil doers, do you think people like Hitler (regardless of what he did was factual or not) would just get away (by dying) with everything they committed ?

[@fonfonanime]

The fact that the qualities of the necessary existence line up perfectly with surah ikhlas is beautiful ❤

[@WurstelFestchen]

Even if there was an objective proof for a god, there can't be for religion, since it could be a different way. Thus, no logical proof except direct evidence of its originator can verify religion.

[@JustinHerchel]

@@WurstelFestchen don't worry, there are additional arguments for the veracity of Islam, for example. Once you establish God, you can establish that Muhammad is a Prophet of God or that the Quran has a divine origin. No need to rush :)

[@bornawatermelon5807]

​@@JustinHerchel well say one of them

[@kkunknownkk]

@@WurstelFestchen There is no objective proof for anything. Humans don't naturally operate on skepticism unless they have other reasons influencing them to doubt. That's not a valid excuse to not follow a religion in my opinion but it depends on the person and what they know really.

[@ahuman9882]

​@@bornawatermelon5807 So you believe that a "necessary existence" is there, and want to simply know its attributes?

[@alexcusmir8510]

Basically it can be summerised by this Alan Watts quote: "After all, isn't it strange that anything exists at all?"

[@parmykumar8592]

​@@AhmedN.-ky8ii India was China's teacher in religion and imaginative literature, and the world's teacher in trigonometry, quadratic equations, grammar, phonetics, Arabian Nights, animal fables, chess and philosophy." - The Wisdom of China and India Lin Yutang, p. 3-4 ~ The Arabs derived technical guidance in every branch of study such as astronomy, mathematics and physics from India. A noted scholar of history, W.H. Siddiqui notes: “The Arab civilization grew up intensively as well as extensively on the riches of Indian trade and commerce. Nomadic Arab tribes became partially settled communities and some of them lived within walled towns practised agriculture and commerce, wroteon wood and stone, feared the gods and honored the kings.” ~ Arabic medicine was founded on the translations from the Sanskrit treatise, made by command of the Kaliphs of Baghdad, 750-960 AD. European medicine, down to the 17th Century, was based upon the Arabic; and the name of the Indian physician Charaka repeatedly occurs in the Latin translations.” ~ Sir William Hunter, British Historian.

[@tenciaga]

I find it funny because if nothing existed there would be nothing at all.

[@ShahsawarM]

​@@AhmedN.-ky8iican you describe something that is not from a human perspective ? You cannot do this, so the above quote is still valid. How can one think from another's perspective ? If one tries to do so, it is merely them guessing how they would think so

[@PhilosophicPioneer]

why there is something rather than nothing leibniz psr

[@c.a.t.732]

Why is that strange?

[@ewrvwergwergwergwerg]

I grew up going to a Roman Catholic school and learned Aquinas's elaborations of this argument but with no mention at all of ibn Sina. There was a bit of casual islamophobia in that environment so it was INCREDIBLY humbling when I first learned that many of the arguments we had studied to inform our faith were openly cited from Muslims. It was honestly pretty life-changing and was essential in becoming a kinder, more knowledgeable person.

[@Carloshache]

Lol, alot of Medieval and Renaissance culture was casually influenced by Islamic culture which is very seldom mentioned.There was even Arabic translation academies, such as in Salerno, Kingdom of Naples. Things such as European food culture has alot of Medieval arabic influence even today.

[@aminhalilovic3499]

Judaism as we know it today has taken a lot of believes from Islam as well. The true monotheistic view of Jews is something taken by Islam when they lived in Muslim lands for 600 years after being thrown out of Spain. The is a 3 hour long debate here on KZbin called Judaism vs Islam. Daniel a Muslim student of Islam debating Rabbi David in a wholesome debate actually. It becomes apparent very fast how much Judaism has been influenced by Islamic beliefs

[@moenajadmmh194]

But our culture bombed by european culture + internal issue.

[@curranfrank2854]

@@Carloshache Even Spanish, around 8% of Spanish words come from Arabic due to Muslims controlling Spain for hundreds of years

[@chodoboy]

This thinking isn't overly complex and plenty of people would have come to the same conclusion. This is the very reason why I believe in God, it's irrational not too. No one told me this theory, I worked it out myself

[@Starboy86]

One of the true great polymaths in world history. I’ve heard him called the “Muslim Aristotle,” but Ibn Sina is so interesting and unique that it doesn’t do him justice to give him that label.

[@user-ct9mf4dr5o]

I agree with you. Most “Muslim scholars” are like most Iranians today, heretics who hid their disbelief because of their fear of the death penalty...

[@top10thingintheworld29]

@user-ct9mf4dr5o Most of them were from Iraq(Bagdad) not Iran .

[@user-ct9mf4dr5o]

@@top10thingintheworld29 Iraq then, like today, was under the influence of Iran and there were many Iranians there..in fact, the Iraqis themselves had more Iranian blood than Arab blood lol

[@top10thingintheworld29]

@@user-ct9mf4dr5o Before Cyrus(Kurus) persia had small kingdom . Iraq has blood of ancient Babylonians . Not Arab or Persians.

[@user-ct9mf4dr5o]

@@top10thingintheworld29 There are millions of Kurds in the north, and let us not forget that central Iraq is made up of Arabized Persians and Kurds. Arab tribes are present in the south..

[@AliAzar1]

As an Iranian, we hold Ibn Sina (whom we affectionately call Abu Ali Sina) in high regard for his lasting influence not only in philosophy but also in medical science, mathematics, and astronomy. It's truly remarkable. I appreciate his arguments and enjoyed your video. It's fascinating that today, some still debate whether the Earth is flat, yet centuries ago, scholars like Ibn Sina logically addressed the existence of God among other topics.

[@ezpz9340]

He was wicked

[@mabokmicin]

​@@ezpz9340care to explain? I've heard he likes drinking wine but I don't know if it's true or not

[@AliAzar1]

@@mabokmicin He might have used the term "sharab" in his medical texts to refer to various medicinal drinks or syrups. His works, including "The Canon of Medicine" (Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb), discuss the use of various substances, possibly referred to as "sharab," for their therapeutic benefits.The word "sharab" in Arabic and Persian can indeed mean "drink" or "beverage" in general, not specifically alcoholic beverages or wine. However, in modern usage, especially in Arabic, "sharab" often refers to alcoholic drinks. In Ibn Sina’s context, stating that he discussed "sharab" or drink special "sharav" should not be taken as an indication that he specifically meant wine or other alcoholic drinks unless explicitly noted within that specific historical and textual context.

[@mahaduzumaki6643]

@@AliAzar1The man denied that Allah had all knowledge, which is clear kuffr. He had good and bad we should take good and leave bad.

[@user-ct9mf4dr5o]

He was not Muslim lol..Like many Iranians today, he was hiding his disbelief...​@@AliAzar1

[@faizzannn]

“The uncaused cause of all things beyond time and space” is | al-wajib al-wajud | aka The Necessary Existent- thank you for this Philip

[@chloegrobler4275]

"the thing for which there is no known maker" - non stamp collector

[@donroyaltwoelk5831]

I am not Abrahamic, these videos are amazing on helping me understand the perspectives of such an influential belief system, perspectives which are not obviosuly present to outsiders.

[@alicemilton8756]

Same ^

[@abujabr]

Noticing your interest in knowledge, I'd be happy to assist you with any inquiries you might have about that.

[@funzuno8639]

dude..basicly all religions relate to Abrahamic..or u can say he is The Father of believers Oneness. you just dont know yet...and people corrupt the religions except Islam whics is being Preserved by God himself.

[@bobSeigar]

​@@funzuno8639 Right. Allah wrote all about Alexander the great. Also, if 'Abraham' is the father of religions, why do the Persians predate Avram? How about the Egyptian Religions, like Atenism? All before your rock-slave-moon religion existed.

[@thelaststraw1467]

@@bobSeigar you forgot hinduism

[@hafsabatool8895]

The concept of one God is utterly beautiful...

[@YourAverageOnePieceWatcher]

​@@InsertYTHandleHere never cook again please 😂

[@edilbekabdyrakhmanov]

@@InsertYTHandleHere did you watch the video? It literally said that that the universe itself can’t be God because universe as a whole consists of dependent matters and to be whole depends on its parts. God is outside the universe and is not bound by time and space like the universe is.

[@Minyvan66]

⁠@@edilbekabdyrakhmanovtime and space are an illusion of our being. The universe is not bound by time and space, we and our perceptions are bound by time and space. Causation itself is an illusion as a result of how we experience time and space, and even further the tendency to identify things or parts is just that, it’s a tendency of the human animal mind. It’s simply how we perceive the universe and ourselves, but the universe itself is not as simple as this. Pantheism is certainly the greatest of all philosophy regarding the existence of God.

[@Minyvan66]

@@XxOursChannelX4875 change is an illusion my friend. We experience change because we experience time - we are mere animals. But for the universe/god there is no change.

[@XxOursChannelX4875]

@@Minyvan66 exactly

[@Ahmed_Reza_Mehrdad]

Iranian high school student here👋 I find this video to be explaining Pur Sina's proof much better than our 12th grade Philosophy book. I wish this dude was our teacher😂 thanks mate!

[@mreverything1354]

I was wondering, do Iranians acknowledge their Persian roots or waves of islamic invasion have encapsulated them well in a Stockholm syndrome?

[@blueierblue4499]

⁠@@mreverything1354are you going to make a logical argument or just say buzz words in hopes that you sound like you’re making one?

[@mreverything1354]

@@blueierblue4499 you want to pretend like you didn't understand the query and worm your way out to evade it or can you provide a credible response without getting butthurt?

[@Ahmed_Reza_Mehrdad]

@@mreverything1354 this video was about one of the greatest scientists of all time (Avicenna), who was a Muslim, Iranian Persian. So you see, these qualities don't oppose each other! Quite the contrary actually... hope this helps your little islamophobe brain😉😂

[@shadowgod1797]

@@mreverything1354 NO we persians iranians love and proud of our heritage and certainly acknowledge it the reason our ancient believes ad culture has surviced to this day is bc of us persian people resilience you see in our history as well so many foreign dynasties but same people in all history

[@kobaian_]

Brace yourselves for the incoming hordes of people misunderstanding the argument and their Dawkins' level rebuttals

[@streetsnotsafe1713]

I wonder what Dawkins' is doing nowadays. Has he, too, fallen into right-wing fascist apologia? It seems like a natural progression for these fools.

[@stuartcathcart5525]

​@@streetsnotsafe1713that makes no sense. Dawkins is far too left wing for that?! The weirdo can't even understand the difference between theory and fact. Typical trait of a leftie..

[@Dfgdf91]

​@@streetsnotsafe1713he calls himself a "cultural Christian," which basically means that he only tolerates white people

[@Kamamura2]

You are using an argumentative foul and you know it. All ad hominem attacks are fouls.

[@pookz3067]

@@Kamamura2 “argumentative foul,” 😂😂😂😂. Where do you see the OP even implying that he is making an argument?

[@Sunflowersarepretty]

The first part reminded of something that I really love about Allah as a muslim which is that Allah created us to show us his attributes and his mercy. Say the attribute of forgivesness, there's nothing like his forgivesness and I'm here to see it. He is the loving, the caring, the creator and me being alive rather than non-existing is a proof that he wants me to experience them. If the delights of this life are mesmerizing I can't wait to see what's in the next life because this life is temporary, meets an end while the other one doesn't. Allah is loving and he wants to show his love which is why he's given his this ability to make mistakes. He has also given us intelligence to think about the world and realize that nothing in this world lasts forever and if this world is designed in an unfair manner somewhere there has to be a justice system for those "who got away" and those who left this world with a broken heart. We have a concept of Utopia which sounds like another word for "Paradise" and don't we all wish to be in there? In a perfectly Utopic world? With no pain, only joy and happiness, equality, justice and fairness?. God made us and he's put these desires in us.

[@bengreen171]

congratulations - you just pointed out some flaws in Ibn Sina's argument. if you're unsure why, think about what you said about God's attributes. Now think about why Ibn Sina claimed that there could be only one creator, and what the video says about the totality of the universe, and why it cannot be a necessary being.

[@asrulismail1513]

@@bengreen171 already profusely elaborated above on it being necessary and there you go concluding the opposite. At least argue properly.

[@bengreen171]

@@asrulismail1513 ok, maybe you didn't understand my comment. The video claimed that a necessary being cannot be made of parts. An Attribute is a part - think about yourself. You might be tall, but that's not your whole being. You might be kind, but that is not your whole being. Tallness and kindness are attributes you possess. So if the OP is correct to say that "Allah created us to show us his attributes and his mercy" - it means that Allah has more than one attribute. If Allah has more than one attribute, he has more than one part. And if Allah has more than one part - according to the video, he cannot be the necessary being.

[@inadequateavian211]

Waiting for when he finally responds to this

[@bengreen171]

@@inadequateavian211 He won't - because he knows it points out a massive flaw in his argument.

[@QuicksandJoe]

Im so so so glad youre redoing these videos. When I first found your channel I remember going to “start from the begging.” Ibn Sina was one of your first videos, I used to say “wow I wish Filip did these in his new video style” And BOOM! Here we are. Thank you for all the videos, knowledge, and passion man. I truly appreciate it

[@rosamorales729]

Thanks to whoever uploaded this video. I enjoyed and appreciate it.

[@Lunar.67]

Thank you! I've been trying to look for a video that explains thsi argument fully. Videos like this changed my mind on religion a lot! ❤❤

[@vasme-ju1hk]

This is fascinating. Definately increased my iman, thank you sir, your content is absolute top level.

[@-jijxjij-]

One of the Best Channel's on KZbin!!! Really Thank You

[@majidbineshgar7156]

Thank you for this video for it delves profoundly into his philosophy , Saint Thomas Aquinas has quoted Avicenna several times in his both Summas ( Summa Contra Gentiles , Summa Theologicae )

[@ghalibelkoura]

It is time for me say something ! I've been following you for so long I've watched so many of your videos in loop ! As a guy who has always had a kink for philosophy, religions and mathematics I must thank you for this great content of invaluable value. This is what the internet was made for. Thank you again ❤

[@manlyadvice1789]

I think you mean "penchant" or "interest." The word "kink" always carries a sexual connotation. The mistake is quite understandable.

[@aminrodriguez4707]

Well Hell, yesterday Dr Sledge abd Dr Puca and today Mr Holm, a great thinking week end indeed, thank you!!

[@UAunited]

You are a true philanthropist in my eyes. By sharing knowledge that had been created by influencers of the past, you have given a huge aid in helping someone like me on my personal journey of understanding myself and God. Each piece of information you present, whether islamic or not, is valuable because it had been generated by an analytical thought process and the more such processes i can access , the more informed my personal philosophies will be as well

[@chamberofrelics]

Brilliant as always!!

[@obakshah7540]

Off topic. Even though the english is good I became curious when I heard that the speaker had a slight swenglish accent. I'm pleasantly suprised to find a enlightend Swedish guy who takes interest in Ibn Sina's philosophy, mysticism of the east in general, and also makes good music. What a guy! ❤❤ Big up :) Kärlek!

[@mohammedjafferali693]

Incredible content as always

[@Dinshunoslik]

Thank you brother for this great video! May Allah bless you 🙂

[@reachoutpamir]

One of the best videos.

[@productadvisor1709]

Man , i love this channel

[@nameless8269]

Nice video as always Keep it up

[@matthewhu3514]

Thanks for your videos my friend . would still love some content about Sant mat and the Radhasoami faith. keep up the great work!

[@user-vi5ie7zb8d]

It is great to know someone had such profound thoughts on the subject, usually, as i could observe, many of the arguments on such existential questions use to be quite superficial. I’ve been long pondering on the question of “the beginning of all beginnings”, or “primum mobile”, or “what the heck is everything around”, returning to it time to time. And the best conclusion i could come up with is somewhat similar - there must’ve necessarily always been “something” for a simple reason that “nothing” cannot and doesn’t exist by its definition, nor it can produce “something else” by the same definition. So, “something” is “necessary existent”. Only Ibn Sina sees it as some external entity, and i, being a humble random noname, see it rather as “everything around” in itself, though one could still name it God i think, the God can be “omnipresent”, right?. Where by “nothing” i mean the true absolute nothing, and “quantum vacuum” that stood at the beginning of cosmic inflation and the Big Bang is infinitely far removed from this definition, that’s a hell lot of something, that “inflaton field” in metastable state and so on. And the nature of this “initial something”, some “first state” is obscure and i presume will always remain obscure, unfortunately, so one may well choose God in this place, or just some random meaningless thing, some weird zero-dimension no-space sphere, with a potential to evolve into something else, whatever. I personally remain agnostic, in my view this approach is the most honest to myself, as i might argue on the existence of some particular gods if i wanted to, but i’m, and science altogether, as i believe, not able to scientifically prove either the fundamental “theism” or “atheism”. The same, by the way, i apply to the question of finiteness/infinity of the universe - it is, or “something”, “reality” is, infinite because there cannot just be “nothing” somewhere. That is said with the complete respect to the people who have faith, as well as atheists, i hope it’s clear from the way i expressed my thoughs.

[@PuffleGlurp]

*" being a humble random noname, see it rather as “everything around” in itself, "* You make the same error as point 2 [ 7:30 ] By claiming that _'everything around'_ = the set of all contingent things, is in itself necessary. The Necessary being/entity/thingamajig, must be external to the set of contingent things, and since it cannot be an impossible thing (since impossible things cannot exist) , that means it must be the necessary thing, which is outside the set of contingent things... i.e. external to creation. GOD is not Omnipresent in the sense of being within / a part of the contingent set (the universe and everything around), instead we say God is omniscient and aware of of everything + Omnipotent, able to affect everything everywhere., without getting mucked down by being a part of everything. _check out & ponder upon Sura Ikhlas_

[@mrasoan]

I can't help but link it to the "Aristotelian Proof for the Existence of God" or the Argument from Motion, which relies on a similar logic chain but instead of talking in Contingency and Necessity, it talks about Potential & Actuality - thus at the end of the chain we must have an Actual Actualizer (the Unmoved Mover, the Necessary Existent). It's very important to note and highlight on this argument that whether or not the universe itself is eternal, has a beginning or not, it doesn't disprove the argument. That's because it's NOT a temporal regression when it talks about "cause" - which can be misinterpreted rapidly. Edward Feser made a really great case and go on it in details in his book "Five Proofs of the Existence of God" for anyone interested. In addition he even presents the Objections to these arguments and address them one by one. A clear and great read. As always, great video. Clear and concise. Without bias. Thanks for sharing these ideas.

[@majidbineshgar7156]

Interesting

[@jbftcmof]

Aristotle and Anselm were the first two I thought of.

[@firstgayincel]

Ibn Sina was a Peripatetic philosopher through and through so yes it is highly inspired by Aristotle

[@majidbineshgar7156]

@@firstgayincel Neoplatonism is to be considered as an overlap between Peripatetic/Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy If you read the Enneads by Plotinus you can see the merger between them , and regarding Avicenna he must have read translations of Neo-platonic school assuming that ( as If ) it concerned with Aristotle's philosophy , I know this because I have read some old Persian translations of supposedly Aristotles works which are actually interpretations of Gnostic writings expounded through Aristotelian logic .

[@LetsTalkReligion]

Yes, Ibn Sina was most likely influenced by Aristotle's argument(s). He was Aristotelian, after all.

[@joshuabaehr44]

Excellent video, excellent soundtrack choice

[@insight827]

I wish people studied things like this in more depth, like you obviously have. I hear people bandying about terms such as "Necessary existent" as if they self evidently prove God, without doing any of the intellectual work to arrive at that point. Great video as usual.

[@biedl86]

Great video. There are many Christian theologians and apologists who are using this very argument these days. I've heard it presented by them almost exactly like you did it here. It's absolutely astonishing how Plato and Aristotle are THE most influential people of all of history, how their ideas are interwoven with Christianity and Islam until this very day.

[@YahwehEloh]

If you use this argument towards the Christian God you will only prove that he doesn’t exist. So it is very absurd to use this argument if you are a Christian theologian

[@biedl86]

@@YahwehEloh You mean, because of the trinity?

[@jeremias-serus]

@@ayudroid3568 Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t make it illogical.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

@@YahwehEloh Funny how most secularists behave as though once they've poked holes in Christian theology it means they've somehow claimed victory for atheism, when in fact, for atheism to to truly dominate, ALL conceivable gods from EVERY theological position, whether pagan or otherwise, must be proven unequivocally nonexistent, not merely the Christian position.

[@YahwehEloh]

@@mugsofmirth8101 I didn’t say anything about what you wrote. I just said that it is absurd to use this argument to prove the existence of Christian God. And yes you can see from my nickname and my profile picture that I’m not an atheist

[@Based_Stuhlinger]

More spiritual videos like this would be cool in the future

[@kirandeepchakraborty7921]

One of your finest video ❤

[@S3Abbas]

There's two refinements of this argument which may be worth getting into as well, the burhan al-siddiqin of Mulla Sadra (d. 17th century) and of Allama Tabatabai (d. 20th century).

[@Pekara121]

I find it somewhat amusing when people try to conjur up an image of what god is. But he says it himself, that he is uniquely one. There simply isnt anything like him. We were not given the ability to imagine how he is. Thats why the biggest reward in paradise will be experiencing his existence.

[@tushtush96]

Except that God created man in his image, so we can imagine

[@fruit_is_yum]

We will never perceive god, he is beyond comprehension and perception; he created comprehension and perception

[@tbooonetwo-fitty-five7523]

@@tushtush96 God cannot be shaped like a human, or have an image of a human, or have any image at all. That would imply something is requiring him God to have an image (meaning a limitation of God) or that God was designed (and is therefore not God). The Bible was written by men that's why there's theological and logical inconsistencies.

[@funkymunky8787]

@@tbooonetwo-fitty-five7523what doesn't have logical inconsistencies

[@eugenesteinbeck9469]

@@tbooonetwo-fitty-five7523 The Qur'an describes Allah as having anthropomorphic parts. The whole "our God is more sophisticated than yours because we'll avoid describing Him in personal terms" shtick was done retroactively by later generations of Muslims. It contradicts what's in the original book, which makes this line of argumentation dishonest because they're presenting their religion as something it's not.

[@Uzair_Of_Babylon465]

Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁😀

[@jagk66]

Love your work 👍🏽

[@CatastrophicDisease]

It’s fascinating that Nagarjuna and Ibn Sina made the exact same observation and came to opposite conclusions from it.

[@extremelyrarebird]

In what text did Nagarjuna make this observation? I'd be interested to read it!

[@fusion9619]

Can you tell us more? I didn't agree with Ibn Sina either, but it's quite probable that I didn't fully understand from this video. I basically was thinking, "if God is indivisible, then how do we get a divisible universe?" And it seems contradictory to call God "God," as in omnipotent, and then say God can't do something.

[@0miy0]

4:15

​@@fusion9619 The divisible universe is not part of God. Its a creation of God. So you cant put God and his creation in the same bucket. Also there is a difference between "God can't do something" and "That makes no sense for God to do it" Like you can say God cant erase himself from existence. At first thought u think "wow, well god is not omnipotent because he cant do it" But then you reflect. How can a being that is not bound by time cease to exist? That must mean that there is a period when he existed and then he ceased. A timespan of his existence, therefore rendering him contingent and not God in the first place. See the vision?

[@theclassicrock69]

@@extremelyrarebird Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

[@alicemilton8756]

I might need to listen to this one more than once

[@barashah1171]

thanks for explaining wajibul wojood concept....great ...thanks again.

[@salimbaghli8040]

Excellent presentation Thank you

[@gojiplusone]

My dad was an avid reader of Ibnu Sina's works and this is pretty much how he explained the concept of god to me when I was a kid (with simpler words obviously). He seemed to think of god as an inevitable idea rather than a personified being.

[@AbdulRahim-hf6gc]

Cleared many of my doubts, JazakAllahu khairan

[@saeadborji1464]

I am not sure if it is a sin (ism) to doubt, but every time I have a doubt, I know it is because of my lack of knowledge and my imperfection.

[@Zamin30]

​​@@saeadborji1464I think it's the right mindset , being born in a Muslim family made us Muslims but I think until we question ourselves and accept the facts ourselves once more, we are likely to go astray because of lack of knowledge ❤. Maybe one could interpret this as stages of belief (eman)

[@karimmezghiche9921]

​@@saeadborji1464what does "ism" mean? And what language is that from? I've never heard that word used for "sin"

[@kuro758]

@@Zamin30 it's not the right mindset cuz it starts from an assumption. to truly seek one has to let go off of such biases. in your mind you basically have no option but to believe. then it's more of a confirmation bias as opposed to seeking.

[@saeadborji1464]

@@karimmezghiche9921 اثم

[@traveladventure7745]

Greetings. Excellent work.

[@seerona-wa-yaraona]

Thank you for this one.

[@AyaanFarasanims]

Mohammad Hijab also has a 1 hour long video on this argument. But this is a really good short video explaining this argument. A lot of people have problems understanding the contingency argument but this video may help them out!

[@addajs3200]

Bro i am not kidding but mathematical logic and group theory and set theory help me to understand this 😂😂

[@parmykumar8592]

​@@addajs3200India was China's teacher in religion and imaginative literature, and the world's teacher in trigonometry, quadratic equations, grammar, phonetics, Arabian Nights, animal fables, chess and philosophy." - The Wisdom of China and India Lin Yutang, p. 3-4 ~ The Arabs derived technical guidance in every branch of study such as astronomy, mathematics and physics from India. A noted scholar of history, W.H. Siddiqui notes: “The Arab civilization grew up intensively as well as extensively on the riches of Indian trade and commerce. Nomadic Arab tribes became partially settled communities and some of them lived within walled towns practised agriculture and commerce, wroteon wood and stone, feared the gods and honored the kings.” ~ Arabic medicine was founded on the translations from the Sanskrit treatise, made by command of the Kaliphs of Baghdad, 750-960 AD. European medicine, down to the 17th Century, was based upon the Arabic; and the name of the Indian physician Charaka repeatedly occurs in the Latin translations.” ~ Sir William Hunter, British Historian.

[@romuloroman]

@@addajs3200 Group and Set are synonymous, aren't they?

[@addajs3200]

@@romuloroman no bro in math they are different but related in some aspects

[@vjunaperoh]

Mohammad hijab 😂

[@Sahih_imlaak]

Three clear arguments: 1- everything has a creator to cause it happens, so this universe. 2- The universe is so fine-tuned. 3- the simplest cell is very complex and accurate.

[@rafiksaibi9213]

These are not arguments, but "claims". Or consider them as premisses to some arguments

[@Sahih_imlaak]

@@rafiksaibi9213 I advise you to watch “The Journey of Certainty” episodes, they’re what every atheist looks for.

[@nicco-sixty]

Claims are not arguments The big bang does not need a cause

[@Sahih_imlaak]

Listen to dr. Eyad Qunaibi

[@Sahih_imlaak]

Watch (The Journey of Certainty) episodes.

[@Mosa_MD]

You are simply amazing!

[@bubaks2]

appreciate your content.

[@ASTA..]

Feels illegal to be this early

[@Zen_and]

It would be interesting to see a response to this from the perspective of Nagarjuna.

[@fusion9619]

Can you summarize Nagarjuna's argument? Thanks

[@asmodeusguys4472]

​@@fusion9619lets talk religion already has a vid on nagarjuna

Nagarjuna's argument is really retarded. The dude sounds like he was on acid when he wrote about it. He argues that an entity cant exist on its own because its a "fallacy of eternalism". Just because you call something a fallcy doesnt mean it is one... At the same time he believes something can just pop into existence... Cant expect someone who worships blue elephants and dudes with 8 arms to have great theological arguments.

[@simonstary2927]

Yep it was on my mind since the beginning of the video... Also Shankaracharya was popping up there.. I had no idea that this was going on in Islam...

[@amirbanafi1477]

Hello. Thanks for preparing and sharing this great video. I have a suggestion for you: please prepare a video about the Seddiqin proof of God existence, a unique and advanced proof proven by Mullasadra

[@thazilzain1008]

Brother i really like your video. Please make video of yourself, what you believe in and why….as a agnostic myself im curious to know. Thanks!

[@hadiadil6693]

We call this in arabic (برهان الإمكان الذاتي) - The proof of self possibilty.

[@user-vj1ug2sc3v]

هذه ما تسمى الأحكام العقلية. ((اقسام حكم العقل لا محالة****هي الوجوب ثم الاستحالة*****ثم الجواز ثالث الاقسام***** فافهم منحت لذة الافهام. تحياتي.

[@c.a.t.732]

Its not a "proof" of anything.

[@user-vj1ug2sc3v]

@@c.a.t.732 these are fundamental mental proofs. You just don t have logic

[@c.a.t.732]

@@user-vj1ug2sc3v Actually, I do "have logic", which is why I don't buy into the old "first cause" argument, which has been debunked over and over and proves nothing.

[@darklurkerirl6101]

@@c.a.t.732 please debunk it.

[@teehee4096]

There is a huge difference between there being a necessary, independent being, and an anthropomorphic entity who chooses prophets, makes afterlife realms, has emotions, commands migrations to structures and prohibits certain activities for one sex or the other.

Not a huge difference at all You implying the creator of all existence, cant dictate? Your whole statement is fallacious. Allah is not anthropomorphic. Prophetic system is for our sake. Not any different from God providing the means of oxygen for us to live. Everything is a divine intervention under his orchestration. Also the creator of all existence cant make realms now? Says who, you? Hahaha Also you are totally ignorant of the poetic language of the Quran to say the least.

[@Alieth]

@I think he’s talking about the difference between deism and theism. God COULD technically do all those things, the question is, how do you prove that he’s done them. The arguement presented doesn’t touch on that.

[@AbdiHassan-jq2ln]

@ That’s not the argument The point isn’t that god can’t the argument is that just because a god (as in a strictly necessary) exists doesn’t mean that a specific religion is true

@@Alieth because it's a gateway argument. Once you get into theology you can tackle other arguments for those questions

[@LetsTalkReligion]

You assume a specific theology that Ibn Sina doesn't necessarily agree with. In any case, this isn't what he is trying to prove with the argument. He is simply arguing that there is a Necessary Existent, and that that Necessary Existent per definition is God (and that God must be one, etc). Whatever else we say about God is secondary, or must be argued for in other ways. Very few Islamic theologians or philosophers would say that God is anthropomorphic, for example.

[@chriskenney4377]

Thanks. Wisdom comes at the most unexpected times. I thank you, Anselm thanks you and Ibn Sina.

[@kirandeepchakraborty7921]

There is a reason I love this channel ❤

[@beitophfongfu]

First! Thx for the video!

[@sayuas4293]

Going from "there must be something at the beginning" to "therefore the islamic god is real" is a huge leap that doesn't make sense.

[@sokka47]

Would make sense if you study. Do you even know what each religion describes god as?

[@Contreblu]

you need to first understand God, That something that exist without a cause need to be; Timeless Matterles Self sufficient Have no equals There can be no other thing that exist without a cause such claims as big bang is still composoed of matter and a time and such cause of existant can be composed of something other than itself because matter and time is still something that have a cause. SİMPLY there need to God. When you understand this, you need to study the aspecsts of religion. QQuran simply have an evidence for proving itself Keep in note that Last Prophet of Islam, Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) didnt know how to read and lived in a desert society. Also if this verses didnt feel enough for you I know many verses containning more scientific discovery in it This verse is about a war happenned between Romans and Persians. 602-628 war was a war between Romans and Persians. Persia being Rome's one of biggest enemies defeat Rome heavily at the start of the war. Rome lost half of his empire ( That being; Egypt, Syria, Levant, Big part of anatolia, Armenia, Caucasia, Jerusalem, Jordan, Lebanon and possibly more that doesnt come to my mind rn ) at the time of this verse came to earth Rome was heavily defeated but Allah send his messages through Prophet (Peace be upon him) like this; Surah ar Rum ( First 4 verses ) ( Rum means Roman btw ) 1- Alif-Lãm-Mĩm. 2- The Romans have been defeated 3- in a nearby land. Yet following their defeat, they will triumph 4- within three to nine years. The ˹whole˺ matter rests with Allah before and after ˹victory˺. And on that day the believers will rejoice Quranic law is perfect, Quran linguistically is perfect and Quran itself is perfect. Quran is the ultimate book that proves the existant of God and Islam

[@ushirokaito8846]

"therefore the Abrahamic God is real" you mean,all Abrahamic religion worships the God of Abraham

[@Mazyone_]

So many leaps not just one. Very strange "logic"

[@hossamkhalil4836]

If you ever read this, I want to truly thank you for this content. We appreciate it.

[@cracklingsoda]

Please bring more such videos!

[@Era_Of_Awakening]

RIP Trinity.

[@mohamet_dudealher7528]

Lol fr

[@TheBobbysPerspective]

B b b But The Father, the Son and the holy spirit are coequal!!!!!😢😢😢

[@everybody9991]

B...bbbuutttt I worship 3 different entities (father, son, holy spirit), but 3=1. So, 1 god. So, Im monotheistic 🤓. Abrahmic 🤓

[@Era_Of_Awakening]

@@everybody9991 Watch the video and you will realize that description does not fit in his argument. God must be independent even if you say God has a hand he just become dependent and won't fit.

[@mohamet_dudealher7528]

@@TheBobbysPerspective yo bobby

[@user-qt6pc9se5d]

Is it a cut of the length original?

[@LetsTalkReligion]

Yes, it's just the "proof of the truthful" part of the longer Ibn Sina video

[@parmykumar8592]

​@LetsTalkReligion India was China's teacher in religion and imaginative literature, and the world's teacher in trigonometry, quadratic equations, grammar, phonetics, Arabian Nights, animal fables, chess and philosophy." - The Wisdom of China and India Lin Yutang, p. 3-4 ~ The Arabs derived technical guidance in every branch of study such as astronomy, mathematics and physics from India. A noted scholar of history, W.H. Siddiqui notes: “The Arab civilization grew up intensively as well as extensively on the riches of Indian trade and commerce. Nomadic Arab tribes became partially settled communities and some of them lived within walled towns practised agriculture and commerce, wroteon wood and stone, feared the gods and honored the kings.” ~ Arabic medicine was founded on the translations from the Sanskrit treatise, made by command of the Kaliphs of Baghdad, 750-960 AD. European medicine, down to the 17th Century, was based upon the Arabic; and the name of the Indian physician Charaka repeatedly occurs in the Latin translations.” ~ Sir William Hunter, British Historian.

[@parmykumar8592]

​@@LetsTalkReligionIndia was China's teacher in religion and imaginative literature, and the world's teacher in trigonometry, quadratic equations, grammar, phonetics, Arabian Nights, animal fables, chess and philosophy." - The Wisdom of China and India Lin Yutang, p. 3-4 ~ The Arabs derived technical guidance in every branch of study such as astronomy, mathematics and physics from India. A noted scholar of history, W.H. Siddiqui notes: “The Arab civilization grew up intensively as well as extensively on the riches of Indian trade and commerce. Nomadic Arab tribes became partially settled communities and some of them lived within walled towns practised agriculture and commerce, wroteon wood and stone, feared the gods and honored the kings.” ~ Arabic medicine was founded on the translations from the Sanskrit treatise, made by command of the Kaliphs of Baghdad, 750-960 AD. European medicine, down to the 17th Century, was based upon the Arabic; and the name of the Indian physician Charaka repeatedly occurs in the Latin translations.” ~ Sir William Hunter, British Historian.

[@parmykumar8592]

​@@LetsTalkReligionThe people of pre-Islamic Arabia held Hinduism in great esteem as evidenced from the fact that they would endearingly call their most attractive and favourite daughters as Hinda and Saifi Hindi. The fact that Arabs regarded India as their spiritual and cultural motherland long before Islam is corroborated by the following poem which mentions each one of the four Vedas by name: (The English translation is in black) “Aya muwarekal araj yushaiya noha minar HIND-e Wa aradakallaha manyonaifail jikaratun” “Oh the divine land of HIND (India) (how) very blessed art thou! Because thou art the chosen of God blessed with knowledge” “Wahalatijali Yatun ainana sahabi akha-atun jikra Wahajayhi yonajjalur -rasu minal HINDATUN “ “That celestial knowledge which like four lighthouses shone in such brilliance - through the (utterances of) Indian sages in fourfold abundance.” “Yakuloonallaha ya ahal araf alameen kullahum Fattabe-u jikaratul VEDA bukkun malam yonajjaylatun” “God enjoins on all humans, follow with hands down The path the Vedas with his divine precept lay down.” “Wahowa alamus SAMA wal YAJUR minallahay Tanajeelan Fa-e-noma ya akhigo mutiabay-an Yobassheriyona jatun” “Bursting with (Divine) knowledge are SAM & YAJUR bestowed on creation, Hence brothers respect and follow the Vedas, guides to salvation” “Wa-isa nain huma RIG ATHAR nasayhin Ka-a-Khuwatun Wa asant Ala-udan wabowa masha -e-ratun” “Two others, the Rig and Athar teach us fraternity, Sheltering under their lustre dispels darkness till eternity” This poem was written by Labi-Bin-E- Akhtab-Bin-E-Turfa who lived in Arabia around 1850 B.C. That was 2300 years before Mohammed!!! This verse can be found in Sair- Ul-Okul which is an anthology of ancient Arabic poetry. It was compiled in 1742 AD under order of the Turkish Sultan Salim. ~ Vedic culture was very much alive just before the birth of Muhammad. Again let’s refer to the Sair-Ul-Okul. The following poem was written by Jirrham Bintoi who lived 165 years before the prophet Muhammed. It is in praise of India’s great King Vikramaditya who had lived 500 years before Bintoi. (The English translation is in red). “Itrasshaphai Santul Bikramatul phehalameen Karimun Bihillahaya Samiminela Motakabbenaran Bihillaha Yubee qaid min howa Yaphakharu phajgal asari nahans Osirim Bayjayholeen Yaha sabdunya Kanateph natephi bijihalin Atadari Bilala masaurateen phakef Tasabahu. Kaunni eja majakaralhada walhada Achimiman, burukan, Kad, Toluho watastaru Bihillaha yakajibainana baleykulle amarena Phaheya jaunabil amaray Bikramatoon” - (Sair-ul-Okul, Page 315) “Fortunate are those who were born during King Vikram’s reign, he was a noble generous, dutiful ruler devoted to the welfare of his subjects. But at that time, We Arabs oblivious of divinity were lost in sensual pleasures. Plotting & torture were rampant. The darkness of ignorance had enveloped our country. Like the lamb struggling for its life in the cruel jaws of a wolf, we Arabs were gripped by ignorance. The whole country was enveloped in a darkness as intense as on a New moon night. But the present dawn & pleasant sunshine of education is the result of the favor of that noble king Vikram whose benevolence did not lose sight of us foreigners as we were. He spread his sacred culture amongst us and sent scholars from his own land whose brilliance shone like that of the sun in our country. These scholars & preceptors through whose benevolence we were once again made aware of the presence of god, introduced to his secret knowledge & put on the road to truth, had come to our country to initiate us in that culture & impart education.” Thus we can see that Vedic religion and culture were present in Pre-Islamic Arabia as early as 1850 B.C., and definitely present at the time of Mohammed’s birth.

[@user-qt6pc9se5d]

Thanks for the answer. It's an amazing thought.

[@roberttarquinio1288]

Great video

[@thesuperiorman8342]

Ok but then how does he jump from this concept of a Necessary Being to a personal God that has Will and commands worship?

[@tcl5853]

That leap isn’t necessary for everyone, for instance take a look at Taoism. There are arguments that point towards “God” being interested in creation. You can explore those if you want to.

[@Echogem222]

The argument does not start out as a blank state, it starts out with the assumption that God exists. And so since God exists, he must exist in a way that makes sense... which is where this argument comes into play. But even then, this argument is still flawed since for everything needing a cause, repeating decimals in math (infinity) need to have a cause that is not infinity, because if infinity is the cause of infinity, that would be like saying that infinity is infinity because infinity is infinity, but this only keeps infinity the same, it doesn't give reason to cause infinity. In order to get around the infinite regress of causation, we must use something which isn't possible for us to understand has a cause to be the source of everything, but to do this we must use that which we don't understand, but also understand must be where everything comes from if such a thing exists. You might think that this is a logical contradiction, but if there must be something which has caused everything, that something would be greater than infinite in order to be the cause of infinity, and by that I mean something which is not infinite because it goes on longer than forever. We cannot comprehend something that goes on longer than forever because that is something which simply does not apply to us, us being beings that at most can only exist forever, not longer than forever. So, with something existing as greater than infinity being the cause, that something cannot be caused by something else, because following such reasoning would mean that something else which caused that which is greater than infinity would also have a cause, and a cause of that cause, etc. but that's infinity, and that which is greater than infinity cannot be infinity, therefore there being something greater than what is greater than infinity also can't be infinity, because that would mean what is less than greater than infinity is actually more than greater than infinity. But this is not us truly understanding that which is greater than infinity, it's merely us understanding the limitations of infinity and our own understanding of why everything exists. But what is the source of everything cannot simply be greater than infinity, but also greater than everything which we can understand, even causes, but then you might think that since you can only understand 1 Greater than everything, that must be God, since God is singular, but this is false, as it implies that we can understand that which is greater than everything, much like how we cannot see everything through a crack in the door, so too can we not understand everything of what is greater than everything through our limited understanding. If this explanation interests you, I would recommend checking out the philosophical atheist religion, Flawlessism since this is where this bit of philosophy is taken from.

[@tcl5853]

@@Echogem222 It's possible to miss the fact that the idea of a "necessary being" does not require a first cause. When using science to explain how things work in the universe, a causal chain is necessary. However, the problem with this concept is that science can't explain the uncaused first cause, which is required by the theistic argument. If science argues that the universe is self-existent or uncaused, it's not a scientific argument, but one based on theism. Science must begin all arguments with a cause to remain credible.

[@netrunningnow]

You're doing the jump by asking several questions all at once, like why is the concept of a necessary being related to a concept called "God"? Is God a "personal God"? Does God have a Will? Does God command worship? The way I see it these can even be broken down more, for example: What is a God? What is a personal God? What is a Will? What is worship?

[@Echogem222]

@@tcl5853 I'm not using science for my counter argument, I'm using philosophy, so I don't get what you're trying to say.

[@AessamL]

If possible we also need the counter argument!

[@aymanhalabi4536]

Nothing can shake this argument.

there isnt

[@AessamL]

No Such thing guys...Be Humble!

@@AessamL ibn sina had thought of all the cases. U cant break it, unless you undergo logical fallacies, which suit yourself, but you're wrong in the end lol

[@aymanhalabi4536]

@@AessamL u cannot... The only thing to breake the argument is to pretend that there is and endless chain of possibilities that each one of them relies on its predecessor... And it s mentally impossible and fake thinking also... So no... There is no one can shake this argument even after million year

[@mohsinaziz6367]

@11:48 Man it feels like Surah e Ikhlaq in essence. Brilliant work by Ibn e Sina.

[@mikimilostnic2366]

Lovely video. I hope you do more on imam Al Ghazali r.a. who was known to be "The proof if islam".

[@Hatasumi69]

We could just argue that the universe is under no obligation to be understood by us with our limited grasp of the nature of existence - there doesn’t have to be an uncaused cause at all, we just argue for one from within a universe affected by causality - we haven't seen outside or before the universe where there may be no casuality or any understandable explanation. There's no reason that the universe isn’t the uncaused cause when we know nothing of what lies beyond it - you've just played a word game from a biased standpoint using the rules of the world around you to infer that your belief in a thinking god has to be inevitable but you haven't actually given any real structure to how it is that any kind of anthropomorphic god is more likely than spontaneous generation, natural forces, infinite regression beyond our undestanding, a simulation by lesser beings, part of a multiverse, arising from quantum fluctuations, or many other explanations that all seem more likely than starting out to with the idea of a big man thing making everything and working back with an argument to say it has to exist. It's kind of like the ultimate extention of the god of the gaps fallacy, presuming to know the unknowable and thus planting god there, safe for a while from being falsified. The more I look at the knowledge we have gathered by facing facts, the more I like to entertain the idea of a god who made a universe simply by possibly calibrating the initial constants to be somewhat conducive for life eventually and then let it rip while hiding itself away totally and never interacting with any life just to see if they would be mad enough to find proof of it everywhere they looked - the cosmic joke, living in a self-sufficient universe that doesn’t actually show any evidence for god that can't be explained by unthinking natural forces that don't have to be guided by an external creator at all. 🎉

[@wikiccwaqas111Wikicc]

You think you did something here😂😂😂 such a dumb argument. Whatever you will be able to observe is a set or subset of the dependable things. And anything that does not belong to this subset is not dependable. There are just too many things that conclude the existance of god. Either people are arrogant or too dumb to understand. You want God to show [whatever its pronoun is] itself to you. So then you will believe there is a god. Like why does he even need to do it. Please Educate your self and stop being either arrogant or dumb or whatever it is that you are.

[@bitwise4996]

At least spend some time searching for meaning and avoid drowning in your confirmation bias. Use reason and logic if that's what suits you. I guarantee you that you find something. If you decide to ignore this and dwell in you comfort zone, then be it; you're free for thinking that way and I'm sorry if I offended you in some way; We humans don't like people disturbing our doctrines.

[@Hatasumi69]

​​@@bitwise4996 You're talking as though I'm religiously attached to a belief, that's a false presumption - the logical step here is to doubt, especially in the absence of any reason to presume an intelligent creator when you can't disprove any of the other alternatives or even show why an intelligent creator would be the most likely or obvious. You're begging as well, you can't actually guarantee I'll find something, just presume I haven't found it yet because I'm not searching in the way you like, which seems to rely on a bias of some kind and presumptions about others. You haven't actually engaged with my points, just expressed your disturbance by them and then projected that in a weirdly passive-aggressive way.

[@PuffleGlurp]

@@Hatasumi69 Are you claiming Logic and Rationality are fake illusions? accidents of evolution, that merely delude humans into thinking that we have intelligence, and pathways to uncover Truth? Because you can take that position if you want... but you'll slip into solipsism, and can't trust any knowledge of any kind, not even your own existence. Please expound upon your beliefs and positions regarding the Contingency argument. ----- The Way to the Islamic God/ Building the Defination of GOD bit by bit: 1) Prove the neccesary existence 2) Prove Will 3) Prove Omni Properties 4) Conclude the defination of God 5) Filter all World religions via the Defination (having proven Purpose as an extension of pt. 2) 6) Prove the Reliability/Historicity of Islamic Scripture DONE

[@uzair7387]

This isn't really an argument. All you've said is because we don't know everything in the universe we don't know how it came about but you discount everything we do know. All the knowledge we do have, our scientific, logical reasoning and induction all point to the best possible explanation which is a necessary existence I.e God. So just like in science we stick to the best possible explanation until new information is acquired. If we say we need complete 100% perfect information to do or conclude anything, then we can't say anything for certain and there is no such thing as objective truth. We can't be sure of anything in history, science, police can never convict a criminal as long as there is even a little bit of doubt despite 99% evidence against the perpetrator. We can't even be sure we exist since we can't prove our existence. This line of thinking only creates chaos and harm to society. If you still persist and say there's a lot more we don't know then what we know, I agree with that (and that will always be the case since we'll never know everything about the universe) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't come up with the best possible explanation because of what I said above. Your other explanations like spontaneous generation etc you will have to prove how it's a better explanation than God

[@jason666king]

Contingency is the best argument

[@matswessling6600]

which doesnt say much.

[@fusion9619]

I think I have better arguments. But since Abn Sina and I are both arguing that God exists, being critical of his argument feels kinda wrong... Like friendly fire. Same team.

[@skepticalcentral8795]

​@@matswessling6600 True.

[@shayson1357]

@@fusion9619 your team should be truth not what you already believe in, it might be totally wrong and thus you bias your thinking to accept wrong assumptions.

[@fusion9619]

@@shayson1357 oh, I completely agree. I wasn't always a believer - it was an obsession with truth that got me here.

[@beatrizr9673]

Really like your videos but as a non native speaker it's sometimes difficult to watch them because a lot of the times the automatic subtitles are unavailable. Not sure if it's your choice or something you have control of, but subtitles make the videos way more accessible to a lot of people

[@RickinICT]

I know the automatic subtitles done by KZbin can take many hours to appear, and this video is only a couple of hours old. So, check back in a day or two and I bet the subtitles will be available.

[@user-et9ub3dc3j]

Thank you for your cogent explanation of Ibn Sina's argument. My reflection is that what he is doing is deeply tied up with seeking after causation. Thoughts about causation lie within our minds and represent our attempt to apprehend the universe with our cognition. If we accept his framing and thereby come up with a belief in God, then God is a product of our cognition. True existence does not require our cognition. ~~~~Arthur Ogawa

[@lizzkaayako2270]

11:58 Fair enough, but how is the argument for Ibn Sina's _First_ different from that of Aristotle's _Unmoved Mover?_ It seems to be the same argument expressed in more sophisticated vocabulary. Genius conceives, talent borrows.

[@PuffleGlurp]

There is no competition between the both. Both were smart swarthy guys, Aristotle -> leans towards the Causality argument Ibn SIna -> argues from contingency Both are radically different, yet similar, two different routes/proofs to the same conclusion i.e. GOD

[@GodlessCommie]

My biggest issue with arguments for God is the idea that philosophy can prove things about the way the universe functions. Reality constantly defies human logic and intuition whenever we try to understand it. The early philosophers who thought they could reason themselves into understanding the material world were wrong most of the time. Arguments for the existence of God can only make the possibility more likely but can’t be proof in any real sense.

[@DrMoustafaYousri]

That's where you confuse natural philosophy with metaphysical philosophy. 2+2 always equals 4 no matter what science might bring about. That's because it is a logical fact not a scientific one. Any question that's beyond the natural world can only be answered through logic and philosophy and science cant confirm that answer nor deny it. The question about God is a question that's beyond the natural world, that's why science has nothing to do with it. It's also a question that can be answered with certainty without using the scientific method (which also a product of philosophy and not science btw) like 2+2=4 is certainly true.

[@waleed5849]

great video

[@wisdom-i]

Beautiful Content ..

[@w.d.cortex8518]

Asking how did this start is valid, but then answering with “ an all knowing all powerful god , of course this is the only logical answer “is really weird, I really wanna understand why

[@PuffleGlurp]

It's a conclusion after combining many other proofs. Since the Necessary entity is necessary in all possible realities, since ALL possible/contingent realities return back to it. AND Axiom (can be proven later) : GOD is unchanging in nature (due to being non-contingent/ being able to be no other way/ no variants) AND Axiom (this one too): GOD is Potent (since he creates and changes and sustains the contingent creation) He MUST be OMNI- Potent, all his attributes must be OMNI, as to ensure he in unchanging yet the maximally potent (capable of effecting/demonstrating potency) for ALL potential realities... understand it like this. In Universe A god lifts an anvil of 5lbs , in Universe B god lifts and anvil of 50lbs ... since God must be able to life the anvil in all potential realities, God's strength must be OMNI/Infinite. same way, since GOD must have the potency to realize all realities, he must be OMNI potent ------------------------ WILL: God Makes Choices, hence he has WILL Randomness is not a real thing: most "random" things like a coin flip or die roll are mere complex deterministic chains of events, which we with limited knowledge label "chance" but are infact unavoidable and pre-determined, so NOT RANDOM the Other is TRUE Randomness, such as the reasons behind Why the rules of the Universe, universal constants and the laws of logic and reason exist the way that they do. stuff like Quantum fluctuations and stuff. All these are choices, something is choosing one potential over another. when you observe a particle and it chooses one spin over another, stuff like that, something is choosing. you can say it is "Randomness" i.e. Randomness is choosing, i.e. this deity of Randomness has will = Thought = Intelligence = capacity to make non deterministic choices. ------------------------------ Knowledge: An entity with Choice/Will making choices and designing creation using its potency must have knowledge about what it does. Since all its attributes are Omni, it is Omniscient. it knows everything about everything that it has done and the cascading effects of all potentialities. *DONE*

[@lonecandle5786]

If the one has characteristics, then it still has parts, so if having parts makes two non-contingent beings impossible, then it also makes one impossible.

[@themuslimview]

Why would having characteristics make something be more than one? are you saying that because the hydrogen atom has charge, it's more than one hydrogen atom?

[@lonecandle5786]

@@themuslimview The video claimed that part of Avicenna's argument was that something having parts makes two non-contingent beings impossible. But the argument also assumes god has characteristics. Characteristics of a being are parts of a being. So, according to the previous argument, one non-contingent being is also impossible. I don't know why something having parts makes two non-contingent beings impossible in the first place. I probably just don't understand what that piece of the argument actually means. I was pointing out a potential contradiction in the argument, not making a claim about characteristics making something more than one. Although I don't see how characteristics are different than parts in the context of the Avicenna's argument.

[@natholex]

@@lonecandle5786i think because characteristics are a property of the whole. The parts are, very much that, parts of the whole, so they divide the whole. Characteristics belong to the whole, not to parts of it, so characteristics don’t divide the whole.

[@AmmarYaqoub1020]

I showed up early! ☝🏾

[@user-hz4hp5zq8j]

I have learned about contingency through Blaise Pascal, that came way after Ibn Sina. I guess schools will not tell you everything. Thank you for the video.

[@ami6447]

We can take causality back to the big bang, but we don't know what was beyond it. Contingency could also be an emergent property of this universe and so the idea of One nessecary being is just an assumption. Best position is that we don't know.

[@Pekara121]

Do you exist?

[@pakilla4578]

@@Pekara121 he doesn't know

[@nelsonth]

​@@Pekara121 glib and unhelpful

[@Pekara121]

@@pakilla4578 maybe if he steps in front of a bus he will? 🤔

[@matswessling6600]

@@Pekara121the argument does not rely on his existence.

[@christaylor6574]

Interesting, but the main concern I have is that his concept of what 'God' is has been watered down so much that's it actually closer to a naturalistic entity than a theist concept. ie: if we're being generous all he's managed to get to is that there is some kind of necessary existence, that doesn't owe it's existence to something else. That's completely compatible with atheism. I notice this a lot with many theist arguments - they rarely try to defend the claim about their God. In this case the Arabic concept of Allah. It's a moat and bailey - make a strong claim (Allah exists) but then retreat to defend a perceived easier position: there is some kind of necessary existence. ie: I just think it's obvious problem with an argument for 'God' if the conclusion isn't actually the claimed 'God' but rather something so watered down that it no longer is recognisable as the 'God' they claim exists.

[@LetsTalkReligion]

Who are "they", and what is the "God" that "they" claim to exist (as opposed to what Ibn Sina argues here)? Theology within different religions are diverse and never have a single theology about what God is supposed to be. Many people assume a specific theology based on what we've learned from pop culture. But the history and arguments of theology and philosophy (regarding God) in history is a lot more complex and nuanced than that.

[@braetondavis143]

@@LetsTalkReligion​​⁠I think in this case he means Muslims(but Christians certainly do the same) and I think the conception of God that Ibna discusses is not incompatible with Islam, but you certainly can’t get from this argument straight to Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah and the Quran is Allah’s final revelation. This argument is really compatible with Islam, Sikhism, Bahai, Judaism, one could argue platonism, you could also argue Hinduism, the deism of the founding fathers, and Unitarian Christianity fits this very well - in fact deism adheres to this god the closest because it brings on very few other concepts that need proving. I think his point was just that this argument doesn’t necessarily lead to a god, and doesn’t quite get you to Islam even though Islam’s God fits the bill.

[@Daniel-jm7ts]

This argument solely serves the purpose to prove the existence of God not to prove that Islam is the right religion so I don't understand why you complain about him not proving that the Islamic God Allah exists

[@Visibleconfusion97]

Once you reach at the stage that God exist then you'll eventually try to find out what the religions say about that entity or if they are true. Ibn sina didnt argue about the existence of islamic God rather an entity exists.

[@khayalie_pulao]

​@@Al-Noor-rf4ie So this is your logic *"Any feature that exists in us must also exist in the necessary existence otherwise it will be impossible for us to have these features"* Your reasoning is invalid. Using your logic I should also conclude that necessary existence must also be physical and material. Because I have these features and these would be impossible if necessary existence didn't have them. Now you will say it is logically impossible for the necessary existence to be physical and I agree. The point that I am trying to make is that the basic principle underlying your argument is flawed and inconsistent with your own beliefs and results in logical impossibilities. You have to bring a better argument to prove that NE is intelligent and conscious.

[@basedmuslimbooks]

Been watching you since 2020 Filip, youd finish your PhD on this matter by now - as much as philosophy is a great tool for exploration, how do you know and when will you arrive at the Truth with it? For example, Id argue Islam is the only religion whose conception of God can logically contend with all these philosophical arguments (the pixels), but we have mere pixels and God has the full picture. If God has absolute Truth and He commands us to do his tests in XYZ for about 80 odd years - will you get to absolute Truth by passing his tests? Or ignore them and only looking for more pixels?

[@philklabe2771]

From one Philip to Filip

[@moe9647]

Incredible video, i don't see how anyone can counter this argument

[@c.a.t.732]

It's the old question of what caused the "first cause".

@@c.a.t.732 which is a bad question. If that question is valid the first cause in question isnt the first cause to begin with. So you will have to keep asking until you reach the true first cause which is a wall when you cant question any further. Its a dead end. You cant counter the argument. The only way is to take the ignorant atheist route and say "oh but we dont REALLY know God exists" which is lazy and retarded.

[@teehee4096]

It can be countered. If a necessary existent must have created the universe, then it is possible that the singularity before the big bang is the necessary existent. Nothing about the argument proves any religion. It could be Krishna or a being who has never revealed itself.

[@deFreijtas]

@@teehee4096to be fair the argument does not claim proof for a certain religion. It is proof for the existence of God. There are other proofs that validate which religion is on the right track.

[@bibbs6022]

@@teehee4096 i'd say that a singularity is a state that doesn't just do things for no reason - without a cause. so what caused that singularity to expand into a universe

[@victorigbokwe2165]

It’s turtles all the way down…

[@user-tg9ft7ox4h]

really good video

[@abdulmaliknurudeen7331]

Please can you share a link with your library in it, like detailed list of books you've consulted . It'll be really helpful. Thank you

[@xenoblad]

I generally have 3 concerns with this arguement. 1. I'm not sure we can discuss the nature of causation or contingency outside of space and time. What does interaction even mean in the absence of features like space, time, and change, let alone what it means to be a conscious mind in that situation? 2. There may be different properties at the level of space and time that are wholly alien to us and detached from our conception of contingency. 3. This strains what I call "the proscriptive leap". We on one hand are discussing the idea of an entity so highly indescribable and incomprehensible in positive terms, and yet on the other hand, we're also somehow very sure that this entity specifically wants us to follow specific prescriptions like removing foreskins.

[@igorlopes7589]

Outside of time there is no change and everything is eternal, without beggining and without end. There is no causality outside of time. Inside time there is change and therefore contingency is always there, what is can cease to be and what is not can start to be. Time is unseparable with change and both are unseparable with contingency. On this "proscriptive leap" it is not a leap, after arguing for the existence and attributes of God we do argue for Him revealing Himself to mankind.

1. God is the only entity that is timeless and spaceless. The rest is bound by time. This is when us as a species hit a wall of understanding because we are hardwired to think of a timeline because we flow through it. 2. The fact that you described them as properties make them contingent. Its irrelevant if they are alien to us. Explaining contingent things is universal. 3. You are conflating two different aspects of theology. We are not supposed to crack open God. Its beyond our scope of thought. Also ibn sina is already aware of God's existence through islam so he didnt believe in God just from his argument. He invented the argument for the atheist mind. Its a gateway theology which then you get more and more knowledgeble about divine intervention and the whole story behind that. Yes we are very sure. You are ignoranly assuming that we are assuming that divine revelation somehow is from God without any proof that it is so. Big mistake.

[@MrMineHeads.]

1 & 2: We are not speaking of anything bound by spacetime but rather anything that can be ascribed existence. Any "thing" can either be contingent, necessary, or impossible. There is not an existence that is not one of those things. The only inherent assumption is a sort of Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR; look it up). Hence, any possibility, thought, material and otherwise, spiritual manifestation, place, time, and all "things" that are indescribable beyond spacetime; any "thing" must be classified into an existence. Ibn Sina then asks us to consider the set of all contingent existences and the argument carries forward. If you are still skeptical of causation for some reason, then you are either a sophist or are really struggling to understand the argument. Quite honestly, anyone who raises this objection that "oh but how do we know anything about causation outside of space and time" cannot actually give a reason why causation would be different. Existence necessarily brings about the question of what caused it (even in a restricted PSR). 3. This is entirely besides the proof of God. We have not discussed a proof of Islam or proof of a particular law within Islam. Entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

[@isaacm4159]

The divine is also immanent in humans. Hence the human like rules.

[@isaacm4159]

God is both immanent and transcendent. That might not make sense but why should God have to make logical sense. The immanent aspect of God can be known by knowing oneself. The transcendent aspect of God will always be ineffable. Because God can take the form of humans, he can make mistakes. Though one could argue that without flaws one could not know perfection and vice versa and so flaws are necessary for perfection.

[@gradualeternallaughterflow7527]

Replace the term "contingent" with "relative", and "necessary/god" with "absolute", and you have a more modern version Ibn Sina's brilliant proof.

[@Giantcrabz]

relative =/= contingent

[@amu7379]

Modern philosophers of religion tend to use Leibniz's formulation of the argument the most.

[@gradualeternallaughterflow7527]

@@Giantcrabz I'm sorry you don't understand.

[@gradualeternallaughterflow7527]

@@amu7379 Whether you use Ibn Sina or Leibniz, the translation of "contingent" to relative and "necessary" or "god" to "absolute" holds. It's a simple idea.

[@moudhaffarsaidi9457]

I've spent the whole week reading on Spinoza's arguments for God. It is interesting tobsee the similarities and differences with Avicenna. And I believe also that Spinoza was well aware of Avicenna's work, either directly or through Mimonides and the scholastics.

[@metaphysichien]

very good summary

[@karekarenohay4432]

I see a serious difficulty here: If we represent universal contingency of beings as a chain of links, each one being the cause of the next, what this argument does is to reduce this chain to two links: the Creator and the creation. But it's still a chain of dependence. Of course the creation depends of its Creator, but also the Creator depends of its creation to BE the Creator (as the son depends of his fathers to exist, but the fathers depend of the existence of the son to be fathers). Of course, the contingent being may exist or not (that's why it's contingent), but from the moment we consider it exists, it forms a dependence link with its progenitors, and the link works in both directions. So, in the two links chain of the creation, the link between the creation and the Creator. The creation exists because exists the creator. But ALSO THE CREATOR exists because his (her?) creation exists. He (she?) wouldn't be the Creator without a creation. Of course, almost every religion on History has seen or intuited this difficulty, so all them insist the Creator was FREE to create or not create the whole Universe. But if he were "free", he would exist or not exist as Creator. So his existence as Creator depends of the existence of his creation, and the Creator himself becomes a contingent being. And, by the way, if the act of creation would not be free but necessary, then the Creator himself would be indistinguishable from any blind mechanism. And therefore, not a god.

[@nobbymorph]

@karekarenohay4432 Please stop making sense in a comments section. It is not allowed!

[@axmeddahir6487]

God doesn't just mean creator he existed before[ the creator] one of his name in islam is that he isn't just creator he is also [the eternal] ,again god being eternal doesnt mean he needs a creation to be eternal again if you want to learn god about himself and what he said and he is look at his names not evey name of his like [the creator] is bound by (dependent things)

[@najeebvirk8492]

Seems like your argument is only valid if you use the word “creator” instead of God. God was there before any creation. In essence, at that moment (before any creation) He was non-contingent. The “creator” is just one of His attributes, similar to being just, merciful etc. Your argument would have been equally valid if you had argued that since God is merciful it is necessary that there exists something to receive His mercy and thus His mercy depends on that “something“. But perhaps you are confusing attributes with essence. He was God before creation. He was free. Non-contingent. He was even free to impose certain conditions on Himself and thus become contingent in some attributes. But His essence remains same. Non contingent. Everlasting. His essence was same before any creation & would be same even after annihilation of everything. (Could be argued that He wanted to be Creator and in that attribute He imposed on His-Self the necessity of creation)

[@wikiccwaqas111Wikicc]

But what about dawkin's famous spagetti monster😭😭😭 ah his god is dependendent on "spagetti" and "monster". I wonder why people thought he was an intellectual😔

[@PuffleGlurp]

It also requires space time to exist within