Language as Proof for Allah's Existence | The Evidence Course | Session 2 / Part 4

[@abd_md]

I always thought that language in itself is really crazy, think about it. We create languages in such a way that you can make a set of sounds that others will understand. Unlike animals these sounds actually have grammar and vocabularies and not all humans speak the same tongue yet we are all able to learn other languages. It’s even crazier that language isn’t limited by survival like animals, there is poetry and literature. The fact that only humans write on stuff sculpt words on walls, to tell stories or information. People usually take pride in their language which animals don’t. People went from remote tribes to civilization because of language. Stories Morals Experience books are facets of information which provide the wisdom of a life time. The kind of wisdom an animal cannot even comprehend. I think language and comprehension is proof that the pen is mightier than the sword. There is also the fact that people are able to understand another person in the first place and understand, it’s like when a baby is born it doesn’t comprehend others, but when they grow they start to understand that others actually exist and have lives outside their own and that they aren’t there for them. This is why I believe that direct real life conversation is the way to understanding because just like the child finally understands society you get a window into their life. It’s the same reason I prefer debates to be personal because you can’t escape and when you’re online or communicating indirectly you can say things you wouldn’t say in real life. Real life conversation is the way to go if you want to humanize a people, for example the black people were thought to be hyper sexual as a stereotype in Europe and other places, but through conversation a common understanding and belief formed. Just wanted to pour my thoughts because I marvel at the simple things we shouldn’t take for granted. Truly the best designer.

[@muslimwoolfy-winterequestr4344]

Indeed

[@Juicersen]

Idk language just doesn’t seem that special to me. We’ve been able to teach gorillas language and while they can’t speak it from their mouth, they can understand it. They can do sign language and get emotional from watching movies which tells me they do understand. We discovered a fish that has a language recently, the patterns in the sounds it makes tells us their noises are more complicated than we’d think. Elephants are able to draw pictures and they dance to music. This argument just seems to me that since we got here first, nothing else will get here. Or since we don’t understand animal language completely yet we underestimate how intelligent they really are.

[@abd_md]

@@Juicersen if you’re referring to koko and the likes there is debate as to if they did understand. I didn’t claim that animals can’t feel. That’s a strawman. I didn’t say elephants or parrots or whatever can’t dance or paint. It’s the point that humans can create a language make a writing system and teach it to others who aren’t necessarily related to them. It’s clear animals understand emotions but cannot convey complex ideas or emotions to other animals. The argument of evolution is just conjecture because there is not enough proof to expect the animals to become like us. Evolution doesn’t necessarily have a will or a goal according to you so intelligence is not a goal it is random a species can become less intelligent. Also there is no guarantee that they will survive and agree between each other to be altruistic. You missed the whole point honestly.

[@Juicersen]

@@abd_md My point is just because we’re the first on the planet to do this doesn’t mean other species won’t get here in the future and it definitely doesn’t mean this stuff comes from a God

[@abd_md]

@@hillarysemails1615 these aren’t indicative of what you say. And Russian isn’t what you’re saying it is Arabic is the same way it’s not about importance it’s about context these sentences don’t mean the same things they are the same thing in certain contexts. In Arabic you can say the boy wrote the book or wrote book boy

[@iiddrrii6051]

Interesting ideas. However, there are parts of language that are innate, and others that are learnt. Nicaraguan Sign Language - deaf children made up their own sign language. It wasn't "taught". Also, there not need be a infinite regress of words defining words. The anchor for words is the real-world experience. Look at Hellen Keller, she was deaf, blind, and mute. Ann taught her "water" by signing it, while her hand was under the running water.

[@IshaaqNewton]

Innate capacity + Learnt Wow! Nice way to put it. Looks like many of us including me have to develop our use of language. 😅

[@ThoughtAdventurePodcast]

Reminder this video is part of a larger course of over 20 videos. In this short video Sharif discusses an idea about language formation cannot be explained on purely non naturalistic means. This is an extension to the discussion from session 1 video 4 which discussed what is rational thought. Please review that and the previous videos in this session in order to fully appreciate the points raised here. Session 1. Way to belief Session 2. Evidences for one God. Session 3. Responses to arguments against God’s existence. Session 4. Need for revelation. Session 5. Linguistic miracle of the Quran.

[@Obscuredbywinds]

Your inability to understand what epistemic justification is and what constitutes evidence is astounding. your channel is hilariously delusional.

[@ThoughtAdventurePodcast]

@@Obscuredbywinds kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJWwXmaQaJWohNE Here’s a video which you featured in with the TAP brothers.

[@Obscuredbywinds]

@@ThoughtAdventurePodcast yeah the video where they got annihilated then claimed victory and when invited on my show (since we went on a muslim show) they refused and ran away? the same show where they were educated my s physicist and ignored the facts and changed their premises from causes to explanations while pretending they didn’t? utterly embarrassing on their part on every level.

[@km0262]

@@Obscuredbywinds You sound hurt.

[@Obscuredbywinds]

@@km0262 huh? hurt about what?

[@TravelingPhilosopher]

When the meaning that is embedded in words, between the word or object & meaning, there is a divine embedment through which this consequence of the process of deriving meaning is awe-inspiring to me. The existence of such phenomenons is predicated on being the embodiments of signs that point towards the Embedder/Implanter of Meaning. Subhan Allah

[@silkydude]

Interesting, never heard of this argument before

[@epicochafausen9312]

Because it's so bad

[@commandar88]

@@epicochafausen9312 that's your subjective opinion

[@epicochafausen9312]

@Reyyan Dan8 the clásic, when someone says an argument is bad, the arrogant hollow replies "because you dont undestand it". If you dont see the holes in this argument, I'm afraid you are the one limited in comprehension

[@epicochafausen9312]

@@commandar88 it's objectively bad, the meaning of words it's not in other words, it's in the world. How do you think kids learn, by associating the words to objects in the world or situations.

[@africandawahrevival]

The shallow minded won't be able to make that conclusion unfortunately, may Allah give us deeper understanding.

[@HussainFahmy]

*_Proof of Allah is all around us._*

[@Tsuroproduction]

Thank you very much. But can't language be established on just pointing out at things? Like we see stone or water and point out saying "water" or "stone"?

[@waliahmedkhokar8943]

Meaning is related to awareness because we are aware of meaning so what we perceive in reality is in our mind so i think we perceive reality indirectly and we need prior knowledge to gain new knowledge for example we can identity things without thinking about it so law of identity is intuitive and it's not something we learn from experience because for experience we need intuition of law of identity and knowledge cannot come from non-knowledge

[@asadullahsaaid3794]

Subhanallah ❤️🤍❤️ Beautifully articulated 👌🏻

[@mckabir869]

Masha’Allah. May Allah preserve you

[@FNSN123]

//The only way to explain the meaning of 'words' is by reference to the creator allah. verse 2:31 and he taught adam all the 'names' (of everything)..// It is a bad argument. The 'words' used here is over generalisation on the 'names' used in the verse. 2. Names (noun) is just 1 type of words. There are many other types of words beside Noun such as Verb, Adjective, Adverb, Determiner, Pronoun, Proposition, Conjunction, Interjection, Numeral and Negator were not taught. 3. Names (nouns) is only 1 part of the words vocabulary. To form meaningful sentence for a language, we need grammar plus vocabulary. Grammar were not taught. 4. The teaching of names was only part of the language (oral language), equally important written language were not taught. 5. And there was no mention of what language is it. Overall a lot of open gap.

[@MuhammadHassan200]

Could have been semantics

[@muslimwoolfy-winterequestr4344]

this circular idea where meanings depend on other meanings and so on is something that I have thought a lot about in the past and it has always puzzled my mind

[@1niyon]

Could language not just be any jargon associated with an external stimulus or correlation to experience? After all that is how we learn language to begin with. Words are merely references to things that are external... and ideas abstractions of those experiences. Not sure how you jump straight to Allah from that. Animals have their own form of language as well... although more primitive. If you would argue our ability to specifically reference something is what you meant... then I still think you have issues here... In the quran , the ants clearly know what suleiman's army was.... and the hudhud could reference specific people. If you meant spoken references... then i guess you could argue humans are one of the only known species which can both reference something, and communicate that specific reference with a great deal of accuracy. then sure. But this isnt then a foundational difference, rather, it is a specialization on what has always existed in the animal kingdom. Of all the arguments ive come across for the existence of god, this is by far one of the least based. Though the existence of language certainly is awe inspiring. Sure there has to be something that grounds language, but the answer is so clear... its our experience. Something has to ground experience? Sure it has to be an objective existence. And an objective existence. What grounds an objective existence? well... this is the question of contingency all over of which i can and will argue that its an eternal objective existence... either itself or something up the line of causation (Of which doesnt make much difference... because its merely shifting the issues existent or nonexistent up the chain). Most people can agree to the notion of causation. So you will end up saying "an uncaused cause" is what we have to look for. But in doing so you completely neglect the framework in which things exist... Which im fairly certain you would not say is god. Some people call it nature. Some people call it space time. I suppose this is why you are going the language route, to signify the intelligence of this neccesary being... But ive already suggested an alternative which requries less assumptions and has more explaining power... This is not an affirmed route to god. UNLESS... you are suggesting that nature itself or the fabric of the universe is god itself... In which case, id agree but its considered a heretical view in many eyes. (wahdat al wujood). Pretty based if you ask me from a philosophical perspective. But i digress... I dont think that is your position.

[@bengreen171]

yeah - this is just a more sophisticated version of 'look at the miracle of the Quran' argument. Just a lot of waffle leading up to a vague quote from the hadiths. Ironically, it's a circular argument that attempts to prove philosophical arguments with the Quran, and prove the Quran with philosophical arguments. All these 'parts of the larger course' are irrelevant decoration to hte actual 'cake' of their contingency argument. They don't add anything - as you rightly point out - unless you first accept their contingency argument. I think modern apologists - both Christian and Muslim have started to move away from defending their holy texts, in favour of more abstract notions of God - it means they don't have to deal with the problems within the text, whether that be contradictions or blatant errors. The trouble is that these guys do want to reference the text as well - and yet are completely unwilling to evaluate it on its own merits. They just assert its veracity because they consider they have already 'proven' God with the philosophy. It's an inherently dishonest approach. They don't defend the text themselves, but when someone attacks the text, they pivot and claim that only a 'philosophical' attack holds any weight. Like with their answer to the problem of Evil last night - they asserted that a possible escape for a general definition of God somehow means their own concept of God was necessarily free to use that same defence. And they even had the balls to claim this was the case 'even if the possible reason to allow evil wasn't actually true'. Essentially they are answering a skeptical objection by being ultra skeptical.

[@omaribnalahmed5967]

Hmmm, I am skeptical about this argument. Although I definitely agree that humans have the capacity to affirm meta-natural facts and come to sound conclusions (God) as a philosphical argument I think there will be much to defend.

[@cheesecake8671]

is it about the linguistic miracles of the Quran?

[@ErikDIto]

I think it’s about Allah saying that Language/speech is one of His gifts to mankind.

[@thesource6673]

I think it would be about our ability to speak and communicate with each other, which is a profound distinction for humankind from other creations here on earth. Furthermore to ad to the point that it is a miracle, our ability to speak its not mandatory for our survival and reproduction, which makes it unexplainable under darwinism or materialism. With that said, language requires an explanation beyond materialism/physicalism.

[@waitingfor2thessalonian24.2]

now you said follow the prophet's command and sunnah. your prophet said no zina and he himself do zina. Which one do you follow?

[@commandar88]

@@waitingfor2thessalonian24.2 does that make 1=3 trinity true?

[@عبدالله-ت6خ6ي]

@@waitingfor2thessalonian24.2 bring your proof

[@freeman7983]

Masha ALLAH

[@Ryba125]

Very uneducated guest, a random person point a object and make a sound, the sound make the objet for another. The fact that we as species cut the world alike make the meaning clear.

[@yellowpetelol6417]

Theistic Apologetics 101: 1. Pick some feature of the world - be it consciousness, the beginning of the universe, the beginning of life, morality, rationality, language; it doesn't matter. Almost anything will do, though you get bonus points if it's something that the average person or even humanity as a whole doesn't know much about. 2. Assert that this feature couldn't exist if God didn't exist. 3. Skip over the part where you actually lay out how the God hypothesis predicts the feature in question or at least explains it in any more detail than "God wanted it and so he made it". 4. Declare that this constitutes proof for God's Existence.

[@Oneummahgeneration]

Are you an atheist?

[@shadowwhowalk]

I think your mind is the one who skipped over because it is too intellectually lazy or dishonest. Also, belief in God is intuitive; it is something humans naturally and meaningfully inferred from our observations of the world and what it contains. This is a given for the majority of humans, and requires effort to challenge, which is not seen in your comment.

[@omaribnalahmed5967]

Atheist moment

[@MuhammadHassan200]

I guess you just want to escape the truth and not understand

[@MuhammadHassan200]

Okay so according to your logic one should just ignore if they suddenly wake up in a strange place and just enjoy?

[@djaxx587]

We actually know that language comes from the brain.

[@commandar88]

a brain that once had no consciousness and then magically did and language emerged magically

[@djaxx587]

@@commandar88 No it developped naturally.

[@commandar88]

@@djaxx587 yeah it "naturally" emerged in a brain that went from non-conscious to conscious that knew vocabulary and grammar

[@Juicersen]

@@commandar88 What makes you think consciousness is such a special thing?

[@commandar88]

@@Juicersen what does consciousness even look like, smell like, taste like, sounds like, feel like. I have never seen it. Is it really that special if it's something that came from something non-conscious?

[@osmantuce4069]

👍🏻

[@epicochafausen9312]

Wtf man? The only way to explain the meaning of words is with Allah? What a cheap ass argument. Any person that studies language professionally is laughing at this

[@commandar88]

Who has the complete source of knowledge if not God?

[@epicochafausen9312]

@@commandar88 there is no reason to justify that there has to be a being with all the knowledge. Acquisition of knowledge is a human thing.

[@atheist-karate-guy]

Post hoc nonsense…

[@socratesson4320]

The first words were intuitively "agreed" by social creatures. No mystery what so ever. Your argument only works if you don't see anything other than metaphysics. No relation of material to immater

[@omaribnalahmed5967]

Socrates son why do you even bother? Literally no atheist/theist takes you seriously. What do you expect from someone who said he is '' the greatest philosopher'' you are a Joke.

[@anonymouschannel9543]

Necessary being does not mean it is god. That's a leap. An language is an evolved tool derived from meanings describing sounds and mental images.

[@DePeaceHunter]

They have video where they explain in detail why necessary being --> God. You can challange their argument there

[@anonymouschannel9543]

@@DePeaceHunter No matter what argument they put forth, it is still a LEAP to go from necessary being to a personal god who sent an angel to an illiterate man (Muhammad) in the middle east.

[@Oneummahgeneration]

@@anonymouschannel9543 kzbin.info/www/bejne/p6Cwqq2Ng5drnas here’s the stream that discusses it. Step by step you build the foundations for the belief of Islam.

[@muslimwoolfy-winterequestr4344]

@@anonymouschannel9543 he isn’t taking about the personal God he just taking about God in general at least in this video I guess

[@anonymouschannel9543]

@@muslimwoolfy-winterequestr4344 He is a Muslim therefore he makes arguments for the personal god of Islam.

[@waitingfor2thessalonian24.2]

now you said follow the prophet's command and sunnah. your prophet said no zina and he himself do zina. Which one do you follow?

[@thepoorsultan5112]

The prophet never committed Zina Filthy liar

[@Anon-uv9mj]

Don’t be an idiot and educate yourself. Don’t make lies about the Prophet (peace be upon him)

[@waitingfor2thessalonian24.2]

@@thepoorsultan5112 Sura 33:50-51 *O prophet, We have made lawful* for you all your wives whom you have given their dowers, and those (bondwomen) whom you own, out of the captives Allah has given to you as spoils of war, _and daughters of your paternal uncle, and daughters of your paternal aunts, and daughters of your maternal uncle, and daughters of your maternal aunts, who have migrated with you, and a believing woman who offers herself for (marrying) the prophet without dower, if the prophet wishes to bring her into his marriage,_ *these rules being exclusive for you, and not for the (rest of the) believers,-* We know what We have prescribed for them in respect of their wives and the slave-girls they own - so that there should be no difficulty for you. Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very-Merciful. You, [O Muhammad], may put aside whom you will of them or take to yourself whom you will. And any that you desire of those [wives] from whom you had [temporarily] separated - there is no blame upon you [in returning her]. That is more suitable that they should be content and not grieve and that they should be satisfied with what you have given them - all of them. And Allah knows what is in your hearts. And ever is Allah Knowing and Forbearing. Sura 66:1 O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] *what Allah has made lawful for you,* seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and said: Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this:" You may defer any one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish; and if you desire any you have set aside (no sin is chargeable to you)" (sura 33:51)

[@waitingfor2thessalonian24.2]

@@Anon-uv9mj Sura 33:50-51 *O prophet, We have made lawful* for you all your wives whom you have given their dowers, and those (bondwomen) whom you own, out of the captives Allah has given to you as spoils of war, _and daughters of your paternal uncle, and daughters of your paternal aunts, and daughters of your maternal uncle, and daughters of your maternal aunts, who have migrated with you, and a believing woman who offers herself for (marrying) the prophet without dower, if the prophet wishes to bring her into his marriage,_ *these rules being exclusive for you, and not for the (rest of the) believers,-* We know what We have prescribed for them in respect of their wives and the slave-girls they own - so that there should be no difficulty for you. Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very-Merciful. You, [O Muhammad], may put aside whom you will of them or take to yourself whom you will. And any that you desire of those [wives] from whom you had [temporarily] separated - there is no blame upon you [in returning her]. That is more suitable that they should be content and not grieve and that they should be satisfied with what you have given them - all of them. And Allah knows what is in your hearts. And ever is Allah Knowing and Forbearing. Sura 66:1 O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] *what Allah has made lawful for you,* seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and said: Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this:" You may defer any one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish; and if you desire any you have set aside (no sin is chargeable to you)" (sura 33:51)

[@saimtanweer4145]

@@waitingfor2thessalonian24.2 where is zina in this ???