DOES GOD EXIST? & the Atheist arguments against - Abdullah al Andalusi, Surrey University

Does God Exist? & a look at all the Atheists arguments against it - Abdullah al Andalusi, Surrey University

[@aquamarine245]

I've copied this from Abdullah's website: (hope it helps) Why this topic? 00:01:58 Denial (00:02:23) 00:02:23 - Inventive & creative 00:04:50 - desires Denial of a creator (00:05:28) Does God Exist - 00:07:05 What is the right definition of the word “God”? (00:07:09) 00:08:59 - Two criteria to be God First criteria: To be Infinite (00:11:22) 00:11:33 - infinite regress fallacy 00:13:16 - what is/why does there need to be a start point? determining (00:20:16) • possibilities (00:22:18) 00:23:51 - conclusion Second criteria: To have a Will (00:26:54) 00:27:13 - Why a Will? Three possibilities for the creator’s actions: Internal Cause (00:27:53) - why it can’t be an internal mechanism External Cause (00:28:56) - why it can’t be an external force to the Creator Self-Initiated (00:29:25) - why all actions by the Creator must by initiated as a first cause Atheist Arguments against God - 00:30:54 The “One god further” argument (00:31:13) The “Denial of Reality” argument [nihilism/solipsism] (00:34:51) The “Multiverse” argument (00:37:27) How the Multiverse argument accepts an infinite creator but denies it has a Will 00:38:21 (refer back to 27:13 where I prove a Will is necessary for the Creator to create) The “Infinite Universe” argument (00:40:51) The “Seeing is believing” argument (00:42:24) The “God is complex” / Occam’s Razor argument (00:43:56) The “Nothing is certain” argument (00:44:56) The “Infinite in the Finite” argument (00:45:15) The “Conservation of Energy argument” (00:50:41) The “Virtual Particles argument” (00:50:41) The “Unfalsifiable text argument” (00:53:54) The “Problem of Evil” argument (00:55:38) The “Reality is Counter-intuitive/non-rationalisable argument” (00:56:48) Q & A - 01:03:18 Qur’an un/created? (01:03:37) Islam & Evolution (01:08:26) Adam without parents (01:16:06) Limitations (01:18:48) 01:22:32 - Use of “He” How God Creates (01:23:25) Meaning (01:25:55) Attributes of God (01:30:45)

[@mrnajat5811]

JazakAllah

[@AtheismLeadsToIrrationality]

Jazaak Allahu khairan

[@umerrehman8784]

Jazak'Allahu Khairan bruv

[@truth3137]

Very useful. Thanks.

[@llrainll]

Incredible man. I can’t wait to finish watching this. I’ve seen short clips of your debates. You always end your opponents.

[@Saber23]

Indeed he does mashallah 😊

[@dacheese111]

I am not Muslim, I am catholic, but this is a fantastic video. Abdullah explains it fantastically!

[@aniiss04]

That's very nice! May Allah swt. guide you

[@sunset2.00]

let us come together upon which we agree.

[@AbrarManzoor]

Love to you brother we also benefit from Christian scientists like dr Michael behe and Douglass axe.

[@sebastianofmilan]

Pax vobiscum.

[@lunarcalendar368]

It would be nice if Atheists in the comments actually had arguments to counter Abdullah without ranting on couple of memes they have read to become Atheists. Most of the comments by Atheists here are ad hominem.

[@sirilay]

I'll be more than happy to comply. I have to listen through, first

[@AnswerEasy]

lol memes xD that was brutal

[@Saber23]

sirilay go ahead, I’m listening, unless you were bluffing considering your subscribed to Genetically Modified Skeptic of all people who is possibly the single most un-intelligent new atheist on the internet but either way, show me your arguments

[@Saber23]

@Lady Aisha doubts about what brother/sister?

[@Saber23]

@Lady Aisha go on brother/sister tell me I’ll answer your questions to the best of my ability

[@AtheismLeadsToIrrationality]

one of the best presentations ever 👍👍👍 , may Allah bless ustadh

[@osamak123]

Abdullah is a gem. May Allah protect and preserve him ameen

[@greatahmed1708]

dear brother Abdullah respect great love for you from germany great work

[@asefmangal2949]

masha Allah, dear brother Abdullah al Andalusi.

[@hibabenhaida2323]

Salam aleykum ! Do you have these lectures on podcast?

[@aspiknf]

I remember watching this video a long time ago. I follow Sanatana Dharma, but Abdullah is spot on in everything he says here.

[@tobygeralds1533]

Very helpful, thank you. I love the comparison at the end between atheists and flat-earthers; brilliant!

[@Arslan-Karaev]

Muslims don't believe that the earth is flat. You should watch the video before commenting.

[@edinfific2576]

@@Arslan-Karaev He didn't say that.

[@Paradoxical_Sajid]

​@@Arslan-Karaevবোকা নাকি?

[@meesumnaqui7930]

The reasons Abdullah gave in first 5 min are exactly the reason that there are so many believers today. This explains very nicely the fact that many believe in stupid things like resurrection of thag the Quran is the book of God with all of it's shortcomings

[@ayeshashaikh9729]

Awesome 😊👍 I'm watching this from yesterday night first half n end half ended yet ...was sooo interesting lectur

[@AbrarManzoor]

29:56 if anybody argues that the free will of God is eternal like ghazali did and then the universe or creation is not concurrent with god rather creation comes after god and this after will make no sense as there was no time present before the creation of time.So the main question is what does eternal means if their is no time?The second question will be regarding the origination of creation itself that when creation originates as designated in eternal divine will does it imply a change in states of eternal itself because if it doesnt had any impact on eternal being then it sort of implies that eternal being has done no action.In short i want to know your opinion about change in eternals states or your opinion about hudoos ul ajsaam.Thank you

[@AbrarManzoor]

Asalaam u alaikum 30:26 You are saying that god has chosen freely to originate its creation as the divine being has absolute free will or if we use ghazalis words it has chosen between same things without there being any preponderator or any special character to the contingency itself.I agree that God has absolute free will and God can does whatever he likes but at the same time God is Hakeem or wise so my question is regarding the wisdom of god how we will view or see god's wisdom under this ideology of kalam theologians or in words of falasifa God can choose between non existence and existence of his creation then if both options are equal doesnt it imply that existence has no special character and we already know from quran that who creates and does not create are not equal.In short god has absolute free will i had no question regarding that but at the same i had to acknowledge the wisdom in gods activities as being wise is his attribute so my question is that is it ok to say that god creates for wise purposes as kalam theologians say that we cant use purpose for god but how about someone which argues that nobody helps god in achieving these wise purposes rather god themselves creates for wise purposes and achieves himself these purposes without any external help and the infinite regress goes in future not in past as the wisdom of creation of god goes in forward direction not backward as ibn taymiyyah has also argued what are your opinions regarding that.

[@firstaidsack]

There many things that don't make sense to me, for instance, 1) Why does limitation in space necessarily imply limitation in time? 2) Why is "uncreated" the same as "infinite"? I didn't really get that. Even if I grant you 1), why does this necessarily mean that if something is everywhere, it's also eternal? Or do you mean by "infinite" only eternal? 3) If there was a creator, why does it necessarily must have free will? This seemed to me like a complete leap. I get that, given your previous points, it can't be mechanical, not internal nor external, but this still doesn't mean that it has to be a being possessing free will. For example, what about spontaneous creation? How can you rule that out? 4) How do you justify your assumption that the universe is necessarily comprehensible/rational for human beings? This sounds to me like wishful thinking. I also wish that this was true, but I don't have any basis believing that. There were many other details that I didn't address here, but listening to this gave me the impression that you were making one logical leap after another. On top of this all, I don't see why this creator has to be the God of the Quran. You said that Islam is the only logically consistent belief that is also in accordance with reality, but how so? You didn't demonstrate it.

[@firstaidsack]

@Sher Ali 1) This assumes there was a "before the universe". In some sense, you even proved that there was no "before the universe". If there was no time before the universe then how can there be any "before the universe"? The word "before" only makes sense if there is time. And it didn't really address my question. If an object is limited in space, why does it necessarily has also to be limited in time, i.e. created? Al Andalusi seems to be trying to make a logical argument here that is independent of our empirical knowledge. 2) I have the universe in mind. By your logic, if the universe is infinite in space wouldn't this mean that it is also infinite in time, i.e. uncreated? Is it logically impossible for something infinitely large to also have a beginning? Al Andalusi seems to be saying this. But why? This seems to be going against what he's trying to prove. Unless, he's only talking about infinite in time, then it's obvious that it is uncreated. 3) What about no cause? It just happened without anything triggering it. How can you rule this out? 4) Are you saying that just because we have an urge to explain everything we actually can explain everything? Sounds to me like a big stretch. And EVEN IF (huge EVEN IF), where is the logic behind your assertion that there must be a book that has all the (right) answers? Another big stretch in my opinion.

[@firstaidsack]

@Sher Ali Btw...there seems to be something wrong in your (plural) logic. If God is eternal, then when did he create the universe? By your logic, if God existed infinitely before creating the universe, he would never create it.

[@firstaidsack]

@Sher Ali I would gladly hear your explanation of the concept of God.

[@firstaidsack]

@Sher Ali I agree to some extent. I think what you say is plausible, but I'm not sure whether it's necessarily the case. I mean, can we simply apply our understanding of causality to the whole universe, to the sum of all existence? I'm not saying we can't, I'm just not completely sure whether we can. But I'll assume this for the sake of the argument. In your definition of God, nothing says that it possesses a personality or mind. Are you aware of that?

[@firstaidsack]

@Sher Ali I agree that an internal or external mechanism cannot be the answer, because that would just be pushing the question back. I think you can call the first cause however you want, but doesn't the word "will" presuppose a thinking mind that has motivations? Can't we just call it "first cause"? In my opinion, the word "free" is reduntant here. It's obvious that there are no restrictions at this point. This would go back to the question whether there was an external or internal mechanism.

[@SillyTubereal]

SAVAGE!

[@peps7274]

And it's really funny to see someone talking about electron caracteristics by drawing 6-years old lines and graphics on the board, and then reaching this or this conclusion. And from what I recall about electrons is not that one electron can be at 2 places at the same time, but rather that one can not predict where the electron will be therefore using probabilities and statistics instead. I mean what kind of teaching is that, Middle-Age science?

[@Sultanrashidd]

Peps72 you are full of straw man arguments sir. 😂 What is this the Bronze Age that you don’t even know how to make an argument ? That you fall victim to fallacies that were made at the time of Aristotle ? I can’t believe the stupidity you atheists have, please show us how an argument he made was unreasonable. ? Or go back to making making fallacies that even the ancient Greeks knew, you’re intellectual capacity is not even in par with the Bronze Age and you want to mention the Middle Ages 😂

[@peps7274]

@@Sultanrashidd But there is nothing to answer, the video itself is self-ridiculous, and I am actually very suprised such a retarded "lesson" gan be given in a British university. This is pure ideology and political speech.

[@Sultanrashidd]

Peps72 please show us what is ridiculous? The only ridiculous person I see is you making another straw man argument, did you ever go to school ? Cuz you don’t basic know argumentation. This time you also made an ad hominem fallacy, which I’m sure you don’t know what it means so I’ll explain. It mean attacking the person instead of his argument. Which is what you are doing. Please attack his argument and bring a contention or otherwise take your dumb, idiotic and triggered self back to the Bronze Age cave you creeped out of. This is argumentation 101 and you not knowing it is shameful. You made a claim the video is ridiculous, what is ridiculous in the video ? Please provide evidence for your claim or take your dumb ass somewhere else.

[@peps7274]

@@Sultanrashidd By essence God existence or absence is not something you can proove or demonstrate, so to do a video about atheist arguments about God existence is by definition something really stupid. I have watched dozens of videos about corner speakers or BBC Questions where radical Muslim people build very funny pseudo-scientific demonstrations to convince weak people about God existence or Universe shape or Big Bang theories fallaciy. I mean by essence religions hate science cause science make people more intellectually independant vis-à-vis religions (after all most advanced countries are also the most secular ones), and actually real wise Muslim people let other people think what they wanna think, including atheism, and do not try to convince other people of this or that via super-retarded courses shared on KZbin like our radical Brother Abdullad does.

[@Sultanrashidd]

Peps72 saying God can’t be proven is a claim, are you ready to defend that claims? Again you have gone onto a straw man, Abdullah Al Andalus is making a deductive argument to prove God, he is actually proving God in this video. So for you to say it is stupid you need to refute his arguments instead of making personal and emotional attacks about his character. Which is what is stupid. Secondly you made an ridiculous claim that religious people hate science, Sir science was made by religious people ! The scientific method itself was made by a Muslim man named Hassan Ibn Haitham! Every field of science was made by religious people. Please name a single field made By Atheists? Al of the sudden after the religious people have made everything about science you atheists have the guts to come out of your caves of stupidity and claim it was you who did it ? That’s utter nonsense, you atheists haven’t advanced a single thing in the world and just take credit for what religious people have already done. You keep on sucking on religious thumbs like you always have, you are one of the stupidest people alive and that’s an understatement!

[@sunset2.00]

we got a lot of brains in cocacola here.

[@fanboy8026]

real discussion starts at 7:12

[@pastafari9300]

26:06 Prove that something infinite exists

[@peps7274]

I dont understand why at 10:00, Abdullah Al Andalusi starts by saying that God is uncreated/infinite, and has a will. I mean, these notions are already preconceived notions, and to start putting things this way is already something that should be challenged. Cause first we dont know whether God exists or not, and second, if he/she exists, why should it be described as uncreated/infinite and having a will?

[@kutsc3792]

This is a true definition of creator

[@peps7274]

@@kutsc3792 But who created the creator, mmhh?

[@kutsc3792]

@@peps7274 stupid question when the definition states that the creator is un created.

[@peps7274]

@@kutsc3792 Yeah but who defines what is a stupid question? Cause from my point of view your answer is stupid...

[@peps7274]

@@kutsc3792 But who said the creator is uncreated? Are you sure of that? Can you proove it?

[@alexbambamextra]

3:03 the irony is strong!

[@condorianonegdiffsgoku]

nope Quran doesn't say earth is flat. Its ironic your still believe what wikiislam says.

[@pastafari9300]

21:22 That's not how proof works. An all powerful being could chose any form for any duration of time with any limit. The concept of limit is something you impose on the object based on your observation which is itself limited to your lifetime and perceptive capabilities. Your claim is unfalsifiable.

[@alexanderoneill6160]

9:42 prove it needs a will?

[@peps7274]

How can we demonstrate there is only one God? I mean Christianism and Islam imposed by force monotheism to previous religions, but what if there are actually several Gods?

[@peps7274]

@Honor In Hinduism some people believe in several Gods (polytheism), so basically Brother Abdullah is wrong...

[@peps7274]

@Honor Well Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, so 2 months is nothing compared to that, and I think it's important to respect faith of Hinduist people who believe in several Gods...

[@cybermop]

@@peps7274 they think fire is also their god, ask fire

[@user-el6xm2pk7x]

@@peps7274 Hinduism Veda demonstrates only 1 God and the multitude of intermediaries is what Abdullah explained in his lecture

[@peps7274]

​@@user-el6xm2pk7x Important polytheistic religions practiced today include Taoism, Shenism, Hinduism, Japanese Shinto, Santeria... so to believe there is only one God is just bullshit.

[@asyuraabdullah3242]

38:39 56:00 1:09:00

[@username82765]

I'm an actual Atheist if you would like to ask me questions please feel free... I only have a few requests, please... *Understand I can only speak for myself and do NOT represent all Atheists *Be respectful/polite. *I will NOT try to deconvert you. Please don't try to convert me. I want Theists to have a chance to ask questions without worrying about getting into a debate or confrontation. Only when we actually understand each other positions can we hope to find common ground. For Other Atheists: Please feel free to jump in *but* remember just answer the question NO debating.

[@hamzazulfi]

Username Cool. I would like to know why you don't believe in God even if the belief in God is natural within humans? I am using natural here because you may not believe in scriptures or supernatural things.

[@username82765]

@@hamzazulfi I want to give you the best answer possible. So do you have a specific God in mind or just the generic concept?

[@hamzazulfi]

@@username82765 My question is quite generic. I know there are conflicting concepts about The Creator and His attributes but my question was about a general belief in The Ultimate Creator.

[@username82765]

@@hamzazulfi simply I have not been presented or discovered any convincing reasons to believe in a God/s. As for human nature, it appear to me that we are driven to ask questions and find answers. And for many people any answer is better then accepting that we don't know.

[@hamzazulfi]

@@username82765 "simply I have not been presented or discovered any convincing reasons to believe in a God/s." *So, you are saying that the belief being natural within humans is not a convincing reason to believe in The Creator.* *Okay. Then what would be a convincing reason to believe in The Creator?* "And for many people any answer is better then accepting that we don't know." *That is true that some humans don't accept that but you can't say that anyone who doesn't accept that doesn't know the answer and is just being arrogant and egotistical.*

[@emmytones8311]

Why is it taking so long for your channel to upload the Zakir Hussain vs Dr. Brown debate? The world wants to see the unedited, complete, and authorized version of it. When can your viewers and subscribers expect it???

[@Paradoxical_Sajid]

Hey Siri? Does God Exist? I believe In Siri not In God -Atheist

[@peps7274]

If one could demonstrate God's existence, well 100% of people on this planet would believe in God, and since a lot of people do not believe in God's existence, I wonder whether God really exists...

[@Sultanrashidd]

Can you demonstrate that the earth is spherical ? Yes you can Do you still have flat earthers ? Yes you do. Just because something is a fact doesn’t mean people will believe in it. And you just like the flat earthers are denying the obvious, you are no more intellectual than them.

[@yaseen99]

Your claim that alot of people do not believe in God is an unsubstantiated assumption.

[@sunset2.00]

Athiest are always were minority and today you still look at pew agnostic are majority among unconfirmed and they are minority among minority.

[@abaeisaable]

this debate is not following the scientific methodology at all, and most of his arguments are full of logical fallacies, whatever first reason which caused the universe has got nothing to do nor any of what all religions claim, so the big issue is trying to proof that not starting with metaphysical assumptions and trying to justify it

[@lunarcalendar368]

The discussion here is whether God exists. The discussion is not about what religion has the accurate explanation of god.

[@abaeisaable]

@@lunarcalendar368 he is using the idea of God existing to prove religions

[@sunset2.00]

he is ignoreing religion as a whole but useing logic and reason and reality only. You are the one fixeted on religion.

[@e4r281]

what you call "infinite regress fallacy" is actually not a fallacy. You add that adjective just to dismiss it without any real argument. You presume the infinite regress is impossible because it would require to go back in time infinitely. But 1) Time is relative and 2) time may not have existed at a certain point. Which makes infinite regress very possible.

[@sunset2.00]

true.Time is just change over time its not natural matter. So its applicable anywhere. like truth its applicabe anywhere inside or outside the universe. The infinite being is not restrained by time as it does not lose energy or entropy over a certain period but the universe has limited energy.

[@hassanmehmood9503]

Look at the argument from dependency, everything we see is not necessary and is dependent therefore the chain of dependency is impossible, thus an independent being exists

[@e4r281]

@@hassanmehmood9503 not at all. The universe could very well be independant.

[@hassanmehmood9503]

@@e4r281 no, universe is made up of parts therefore dependent

[@e4r281]

@@hassanmehmood9503 everything is made up of parts. So what ?

[@peps7274]

If God exists, who created God?

[@Sultanrashidd]

That is one of the most stupidest questions ever. The rule is everything that begins to exist requires a cause. BEGINS ! God never began to exist therefore the question of who created him is ridiculous. God is infinite and therefore has no limits that need to be defined by anything else. Maybe that’s too complicated and logical for you 😂 so I’ll dumb it down for you. No one created him lol 😂 go back to your cave idiot

[@peps7274]

@@Sultanrashidd Prove me God exists? Prove me there is only one God? Prove me nothing else created God? Prove me God never began? Prove me God is infinite? Prove me God is a male (you say him and not her)?

[@Sultanrashidd]

Peps72 God is not male 😂😂 Him is used as a gender neutral pronoun. It is a gender neutral pronoun in Arabic and even in English. God does not have sexual dimorphism of created beings. He is beyond that. When it comes to proving God is infinite, watch the video, that is exactly what Abdullah does. But I’ll just give you a little summary. There can not be an infinite amount of past events before this moment in time, because if they’re were this moment would not ever happen. ( it’s called the infinite regress fallacy). So In order for existence to exist there must be a start point that itself is infinite and uncreated otherwise the regress would continue. From this we can deduce that by FACT there must be an infinite thing that initiates all of existence. This infinite thing is what we call God, it is only one because otherwise it would not be infinite, because they’re would be something else like it. Which is a contradiction. There can be nothing like him. This all is deduced, which means that it is a fact or a proof. There you have it, it’s proven God is infinite. Watch the video and Abdullah will explain further how God is infinite. You clearly haven’t watched the video and that’s why you are making such stupid questions

[@reefmohammed4764]

@@peps7274 if you dont believe god exist why you cannot control you dead? do you have a choice when you gonna die

[@peps7274]

@@reefmohammed4764 Because God does not exist, come on, it's obvious...

[@killermoon635]

I did not watch all of the video yet, and sorry if my English is not good cause it is not my 1st language But I like to ask what is the proof that god is infinite and has a will ?! And moreover what is the evidence that this god is god of islam ?! Also, from where does god will come from ?! Does he have a brain like human that process his will ?! I mean this guy just make so many claims without no evidence at all. I could easily make many claims to explain anything, anyone can do that.

[@j400wel]

maroom1 watch the video

[@extra222love]

Buddy ... it's a simple analogy! God created everything. Space-Time is among His creations. Space-Time was made as a "jail" for us to live in and be controlled by it's laws. So basically if you'll build a jail, would you lock yourself inside?! ... of course not. The same applies on God. God isn't under the spatial rules, therefore can exist in two (or more) different points in space at the same moment of time. In religious expression (omnipresent). Also, temporal laws don't apply on Him (for time being one of His creations), therefore, God has neither a start nor an end. As a proof of concept, science had already proven that things can exist in different worlds where no spatial nor temporal dimensions exist. Pls. refer to the Super Stings theory and it's advanced form called M-Theory. In other words, science didn't prove God exists, but already proved that the environment God described Himself being in (out of Space and Time) can exist indeed. Good luck in your trip.

[@j400wel]

extra222love God is not omnipresent in Islam.

[@extra222love]

@@j400wel Would you provide a reference for your assertion "God isn't omnipresent in Islam"?

[@theboxingbiker]

@@extra222love He's probably a salafi, they believe God is in one place above his throne.

[@peps7274]

I like how during one hour and a half, dozens of concepts are manipulated just like it is a scientific demonstration, whereas it is just a political speech aiming to "demonstrate" (we should say convince I guess) the audience that God exists. I mean to be certain God exists is just like being certain God does not exist, cause in both cases it is about being certain, while the world surrounding us, our existence, and everything in between, is a bit mysterious.

[@Sultanrashidd]

“I like how during the one hour and A half, dozens of concepts are manipulated just like it is a scientific demonstration” Sir Incase you are dumb or can’t hear properly, he was never making an scientific argument, he was making an deductive argument. Looks like you didn’t watch the video and your little fragile atheist ego was hurt. He is using DEDUCTION NOT INDUCTION, which by the way is much stronger than science. Science is based upon deduction and math (Math is also deductive) without deductive science has no merit. So please come out of the prehistoric cave you’ve been hiding in. Please demonstrate how any of his arguments is wrong rather than making straw man and emotional arguments.

[@peps7274]

@@Sultanrashidd Well if God does not exist then everything Brother Abdullah says is bullshit. So no need to make circles on a board and writte super complicated words like "internal" and "external" - waooohh, what a high level of science ah ah ah...

[@tranquilambiance1751]

i dont think you paid attention at all.

[@HZ_LionsDen]

@@peps7274 still waiting on a substantive reason. Come now, fella save me an hour and a half of misinformation if you are ever so inclined.

[@peps7274]

@@HZ_LionsDen There is nothing to explain. Br Abdullah is just doing politics, not spirituality. Cause one can not demonstrate God exists or not. This is just personal belief.

[@pastafari9300]

14:05 Did you see God being created? You're holding science to different standards than religion.

[@deiov]

actually no...they're being held to the same standard atheists put God to be held, it's embarrassing that you bring up religion when the topic isn't even about religion.

[@pastafari9300]

@@deiov Atheists don't hold "God" to any standards, they don't believe in any god. They hold theists to certain standards of proof which we all use intuitively in our lives: When we decide whether to believe a story told by our neighbour; when we decide whether to jump from a bridge; when we decide whether to eat an unknown plant - we use evidence. Why? Because it increases our certainty and chances of survival. Because it works. But theists betray these standards when it comes to God and they even make the manipulative claim that it is virtuous to do so. Why is it virtuous to believe something without evidence? Would you invest your entire fortune based on faith? Would you invest everything with a probability of more than 80% that you would lose all of your money? If not, why do you do it when it comes to religion? (80% is an underestimation, derived from the probability of choosing the right religion only among the five biggest ones, but there are of course many more religions and thousands of denominations within them, so your real chance of choosing right is infinitely smaller). Theists are the ones who use different standards of proof for the existence of God than they use in all other situations in their lives. Noone uses faith to navigate their physical environment because everyone knows that FAITH DOESN'T WORK. Faith is not a reliable method for knowing things. And a video called "Does God exist" is not about religion? Your nonsensical argumentation is embarrassing.

[@criticclips1560]

God by definition is uncreated an axiom........first learn definitions before asking stupid questions.

[@pastafari9300]

@@criticclips1560 What you say is a claim, not an axiom. Please provide evidence for it. How do you know for a fact that there is a "God" and that this "God" is uncreated? Also, if "God" can be uncreated, why can't everything else? Coherence in your logic, please. And learn some manners.

[@condorianonegdiffsgoku]

@@pastafari9300 Refute the points of the video instead of blabbering nonsense.

[@i.b.thecomposer4480]

I think the problem with this is that he is confusing Intuition with Rationality. Rationality is based on evidence and experiments which leads you to make conclusions that help explain the world round us. However, intuition is only contingent upon your day to day experiences and this is not a very good tool for explaining any complex phenomena that happens within the universe. When people say you can't really rationalise the universe, I believe that is just a misuse of the word and what they really mean is intuition. You can not use intuition to disprove science because if you can, then we wouldn't need physicists, chemists or biologists. Andalusi is a bit disingenuous when he says that proving God is simple because most civilisations came to it 'naturally'. I mean, again, this isn't really saying anything - just uses intuition which is precisely what he says atheists apparently do. He seems to be contradicting his own statements.

[@abdullahimusa9761]

Rationality isn't based on evidence. All you need to to use your reasoning faculties even if you have no evidence. What your talking about is Empiricism

[@helsharidy123]

That's not really a counter-argument. No offense, but it seems like a lazy excuse to dismiss his rational arguments without actually trying. Your excuses could be made in the opposite direction, challenging whatever arguments and justifications you have for your own worldview. I'm curious: would you say this same thing if there was a speaker saying things you agree with? Somehow, I doubt it.

[@TomAnderson_81]

Hatem Elsharidy Is it rational to claim to know who made this universe unless one has been outside to know? Christians say it was Yahweh, muslims say it is Allah. I ask, how do you know it wasn’t just a simple person from another dimension who is among many universe makers of many universes?

[@helsharidy123]

@@TomAnderson_81 I think philosophically you could come to the realization of what the first cause must have been, like Al andalusi did in the video. This is how you narrow down the religion. The only religions with a concept of God consistent with the deductible first cause is Islam and Judaism and non-trinitarian Christianity. From that, the only religion with a coherent, non-contradictory worldview is Islam and that's by a landslide.. This obviously isn't enough to make you convert, but it should be enough to make you investigate it. That's on you.

[@TomAnderson_81]

Hatem Elsharidy It also has unfalsifiable claims such as “heaven, hell, punishment, god as the creator of this universe, messages from god” etc. The best we can maybe do is have it on the back of our minds as a far out hypothetical since we have not been outside the universe to claim to have knowledge of the person there who could be just a regular fellow among many regular persons who make universes and this just one of maybe billions, agreed?

[@e4r281]

uncreated and infinite, those may very well be properties of our universe itself, then there's no need for a god to explain things.

[@aniiss04]

but we actually know that our universe has a beginning, the theory of a static universe has already been disproved

[@sunset2.00]

the universe is finite as time applies here without big bang which is a scientific theory after all.

[@harun3811]

the whole point of the juice carton analogy was to show that isnt the case, were you even paying attention?

[@e4r281]

@@aniiss04 "but we actually know that our universe has a beginning". Your statement is scientifically false...

[@e4r281]

@@sunset2.00 We have no idea if the universe is finite or infinite.

[@doczak69]

God created me but I need a lecture by another creation to explain it to me ........funny rt ?

[@mohammadhdiebi3249]

Actually God created you and me and sent down prophets with a message with one of his creations so you and me can have an explanation This lecture is just a reminder of what God sent down specifically in the Quran all you watched in this lecture was what is described in the Quran in relation to God nothing new

[@doczak69]

@@mohammadhdiebi3249 Quran came 1500 years ago in Arabic ...many interpret that in various ways... I have no idea why God decides to choose the language I do not know to teach me and follow. My intellect questions it from basic grounds.

[@mohammadhdiebi3249]

doczak69 Nah the problem here is people are ignorant to how God does things but if we study history we would come to the realization that everything is coherent For example it’s well documented that monotheism is a basic belief from the earliest sources we have in history Even religions like Hinduism and Sikhism and Christianity if you look into there scriptures and study them you would find that the basic message that is reiterated is monotheism This completely supports the Quranic narrative where in the Quran it states “We have sent a prophet to every nation and tribe (since the beginning of mankind with one message which is to worship one God” Moreover the Quran clearly states that these prophets were sent with a spoken message in the language of there people Your argument here is pretty weak because then you must give alternatives to how God can communicate with us and to me and 6 billion other people in the world who do believe in God find this to be the most rational explanation that God sends down messengers with a message in the language of the nation

[@mohammadhdiebi3249]

doczak69 And it’s amazing to me that the major prophets that we have documented and set in stone in history like Jesus and Moses and Muhammad swt all cane with a message in the Semitic languages Jesus in Aramaic Moses in Hebrew Muhammad in Arabic These are the three Abrahamic religions which have spread all over the globe whereas other religions stayed regional And this is also a promise in the Quran stating that they will be worldwide especially Islam because the prophet Muhammad pbuh was the last prophet so his message had to be eternal

[@mohammadhdiebi3249]

doczak69 Now I’m not gonna argue with you over arguments for Gods existence because we are just gonna keep going back and forth but if you want to believe this is all a random generation over billions of years you can do that But when I see historically many people came with a message which they were willing to die upon to preach one God and it’s a consistent message dating far back then I must start to question that this seems like a trend and something is up with this It’s all about keeping an open mind looking at the evidences and not letting ones bias get ahold of himself I was in that same position years ago but then I realized what the heck am I doing I’m being stubborn af let me go look at the evidence that is out there and trust me it’s overwhelming when you actually do your research

[@factsrecorderjohn5800]

What a load of nonsense

[@stopscammingman]

Abdullah wants to create a Caliphate consisting of all Muslim lands where on the question of what to do with ex Muslims (a question he deploys politicians answers for) seems to invariably involve open ex Muslims having to flee to non Muslim reservations (or else it would seem) on the strength of superficial platitudes! I implore him to meetup with an academic well versed on cosmology and put his philosophical questions to him or her. Of course one of these superficial talking points is that there can't possible be an infinite regress (according to a person who believes in an omnipotent God and therefore a God who could create an infinite regress). Are there any Muslims reading this who believe God can't create an infinite regress?

[@hamzazulfi]

It was a red herring on your part to bring an argument of Caliphate when the topic is not related to that. Moreover, his argument has little or almost nothing to do with cosmology rather rationality and deduction.

[@stopscammingman]

@@hamzazulfi If a person believed that in an ideal state converts to Islam should have to exile themselves or presumably face worse if they don’t and made a presentation seeking to debunk Islam that didn’t have well reasoned or informed arguments, would you cry foul at someone bringing said intentions up? “Moreover, his argument has little or almost nothing to do with cosmology rather rationality and deduction.” The question of whether or not there is or can be an infinite regress is very much in the domain of cosmology as is the question causation and how it can and can’t work in the realm of quantum mechanics and high relativity (wherein the laws of physics become very different) like the big bang.

[@hamzazulfi]

@@stopscammingman Again you are arguing a topic that has nothing to do with the video. What Islam and muslim do has nothing to do with the argument about First Cause. Infinite regress is a philosophical discussion and not a scientific (cosmology) one. Causation is assumed before doing any science including cosmology. And quantum mechanics is not causality free. We are at this moment not aware of the causes.

[@peps7274]

Important polytheistic religions practiced today include Taoism, Shenism, Hinduism, Japanese Shinto, Santeria... so to believe there is only one God is just bullshit.

[@sunset2.00]

taoism and hindu do believe in one highest power or God and who creates mini god or realities. do research on sheng di or rig bedd.

[@pastafari9300]

The burden of proof is on the claimant. Religions claim that God exists, atheist just don't find that claim convincing. It is not for atheists to disprove God, it is for theists to prove God, since the claim is theirs. If you think I'm wrong, try to prove that I'm not God.

[@deiov]

Such childish second grade arguments, 1, atheism is a claim, they also have a burden of proof, that God doesn't exist, also the video already debunked this lol plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#:~:text=Diller%20distinguishes%20local%20atheism%2C%20which,2016%3A%2011%E2%80%9316).

[@pastafari9300]

@@deiov There is nothing to prove without the theist assertion that events can't have a natural cause, but rather are orchestrated by a supernatural, conscient creator capable of defying natural laws. (If you claim that "God" IS natural laws, you can't distinguish natural events from divine intervention, which makes the "God" theory unnecessary.) Without this theist claim, there is only natural cause, effect and probabilities, which don't necessitate any further explanation. Once you understand the "how", there is no need for a "why", unless you can't accept the idea that you are insignificant and the universe doesn't care about you (and that would speak volumes about your ego). Even if you ask atheists to disprove "God", you first need to specify which god (or gods) and demonstrate how you arrive at your assumptions about "God's" characteristics, preferences and intentions. Do that and we can talk, but it's still your claim.

[@ahmedesam5024]

@@pastafari9300 ok i will try to convince you let us start with the basics do not believe in God because there is no strong evidence for his existence or are you doing it because of emotions and arrogance if its emotions and stubborness then i cant if its science i can inshAllah

[@pastafari9300]

@@ahmedesam5024 I don't believe in a god/creator because there is no evidence for the existence of such a thing. There is overwhelming evidence against it. And I have no need to invent a god/creator with my imagination. I could posit the same other reasons against you and your god belief. Do you believe in a god because there is evidence for a god or because you're emotional, arrogant or stubborn?

[@ahmedesam5024]

@@pastafari9300 show me the 'overwhelming evidence' aganist God

[@peps7274]

After 4 minutes of speech, Abdullah al Andalusi states "Never underestimate the capacity for creativity to deny the obvious". But for me, as a rational person who believes in science more than in religions, religious people are very creative to deny the obvious.

[@Sultanrashidd]

Denying what obvious ? Please enlighten us ?

[@peps7274]

@@Sultanrashidd Well it's obvious that "there is evolution, with species getting more complex while time passes by" and religions deny that.

[@Sultanrashidd]

Peps72 I don’t deny that and neither do Muslims. Do your research before making assumption about a religion. Evolution is a fact! Bring something else

[@Sultanrashidd]

Peps72 Abdullah answered that question in the video, which you obviously didn’t watch since your small mind can’t handle a logical argument.

[@peps7274]

@@Sultanrashidd Most of conservative and radical Muslims (as well as Christians) deny the man evolution. You should do your research too.

[@peps7274]

Science does not say God exist or not. I mean top level scientists may have a personal opinion on whether God exists or not, but strictly speaking science does not aim to demonstrate whether God exists or not. So it is always interesting to see how religious people are scared by science, just because science push people to start thinking by themselves. Still religious people like Abdullay al Andalusi uses video camera, cars, airplane, electricity, energy... in their daily life, not questioning the fact that scientific mindset and activities produced all these things.

[@Sultanrashidd]

That is a straw man argument. He is using an deductive argument, not a inductive one. Science has nothing to do with this discussion and for you to bring it up is a definite star man. Religious people are scared of science ? 😂😂 please tell of any field of science made by an atheist ? Science itself was made by religious people. Hassan Ibn Hathaim is the founder of the scientific method. This is ridiculous, no religious person is afraid of science.

[@ExposingHindutva101]

Lol.... Straw man... What is science... Do you know the definition of it in the first place...!!! ?

[@peps7274]

Knock Knock “Who’s there?” God “What do you want?” I want you to let me in. “Why?” So I can save you from what I’ll do to you if you don’t let me in.

[@Mukeet-Khan]

Want and Deserve are 2 different things. God does not need nor even want worship. Your presuppositions regarding the Islamic concept of God is flawed. Funny how you did not address with intellectual refutations, the claims presented by the speaker rather just resorted to empty rhetoric. Question: Can Infinite Regression be traversed, in any possible universe (irrespective of time)?

[@peps7274]

@@Mukeet-Khan Emplty rhetoric is what Abdullah Al Andalusi is doing. I mean he is throwing vague concepts on the board and then starts elaborating pseudo-demonstrations based on nothing. I mean this guy is totally ignorant and uses pseudo-scientific words and demonstrations to just influence weak brains to spread a certain version of Islam. Just like your question "Can Infinite Regression be traversed, in any possible universe (irrespective of time)?" What the hell does it mean? Are you talking about the shape of the universe scientists keep debating about?

[@Worldofshorts16]

@@peps7274 you can't understand and answer a single question(asked by the brother above) but you accuse other people of being vague and pseudoscientific. Just because you know a couple of memes doesn't mean you are intellectually full. Try having an actual conversation.

[@peps7274]

@@Worldofshorts16 My friend, I spent hours exchanging with radical religious people, so i know all the rethoric tricks used by you guys. You try to impose your own terms on weak people, and most of educated people dont buy that. Br Abdullahd does not ask questions, he just throws ideas and facts to convince simple-minded people. Look at the world, the most advanced countries on this planete are not Muslim. Period :)

[@Worldofshorts16]

@@peps7274 you can admit that you are not intellectually capable of countering the argument without giving lame excuses.I have seen atheists usually do that. The most advanced countries are not muslims? Who said, and on what basis did you decide this? Any particular criteria you used for this conclusion? And still, what does that have to do with the existence of God? Can you stick to the topic?

[@hzhz4768]

A lot of pseudo-scientific blablah which can all be refuted, but even if we grant him he's right, all his arguments at best "prove" there might be a First Cause that initiated everything. There is still an extreme long way to prove that this First Cause is God or Allah who has a plan for humanity and everything

[@hzhz4768]

@ManyProphets OneMessage bring them on, those cumulative arguments (and I'll bring you arguments which quite clearly lead to the Christian God (who doesn't extist either))

[@hzhz4768]

@ManyProphets OneMessage you do know the Sana'a palimpsest I suppose? And that there is an upper and a lower text, both of which contain quranic fragments? And you do know that both the upper and lower text contain differences (more than just errors of the scribes) compared to the currently standardized quran? The quran is just a man made book with a history, just like any other book.

[@hzhz4768]

@ManyProphets OneMessage, well first let's take notice that you're not addressing the issues the Sana'a palimpsest poses to the history of the quran. Now, as for the so-called inimitability argument of the quran., that's just a joke, I don't know how muslims take that serious at all. I mean, who is going to judge whatever anyone comes up with? No muslim will ever admit that someone has come up with a work that's equal or better than a quranic sura. The moment he or she admits that, he or she will cease to be a muslim because they'd just have confirmed that the quran would be just an ordinary man made book. And many non muslims will say that the quran has already been surpassed in great world literature, even by works before the quran itself was written. So, that argument leads nowhere.

[@hamzazulfi]

Hektor Z "A lot of pseudo-scientific blablah" *Dude are you for real?* *He didn't even try to use any "scientific" arguments. He used deduction and rationality to conclude that.* "which can all be refuted," *Yes, only if you strawman or misrepresent his arguments which you already did.* "all his arguments at best "prove" there might be a First Cause that initiated everything." *And that is the whole point of the topic.* "There is still an extreme long way to prove that this First Cause is God or Allah who has a plan for humanity and everything" *Well, he mentioned a little bit about purpose and meaning. But this was not his Topic to link them to revelations.* *Maybe in your mind there is an extreme long way.*

[@hzhz4768]

@Ummer Farooq This is going to be a futile discussion, because of the reason I gave in my previous comment, namely that you would cease to be a muslim if you would acknowledge that any of the things I bring forward are as good or better then the quran, but try and read some of these books and see for yourself: Cien Anos de Soledad (Gabriel Garcia Marquez) Im Westen nichts Neues ( Erich Remarque) The Odyssey (Homer) Crime and Punishment ( Fyodor Dostoyevsky) L'étranger (Albert Camus) Die Verwandlung (Franz Kafka) Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare) Macbeth (Shakespeare) Inferno (Dante) Or something like this: www.scribd.com/doc/88665920/The-True-Furqan

[@peps7274]

In Hinduism some people believe in several Gods (polytheism), so basically Brother Abdullah is wrong...

[@sunset2.00]

learn your core text zakir naik long since showed it and debated it with shodos and they agree and polithiesm is only to ease in worship excuse like catholics.

[@djdamode]

You said that most religions believed in one god. That is not true. Why are you lying? Nothing you said can be taken seriously when you reveal yourself as disingenuous. Humans created the concept of gods including Allah. Muhammad made Islam up so that he could get weak minded fools to worship him. He used this god to justify all the atrocities that he committed. No matter how good you are at apologetics, you will never be able to prove to your god.

[@ahmedesam5024]

How life began... We have three options: 1. The universe created itself. 2. The universe has always existed. 3. The universe had to be created The universe created itself: For something to create itself it would have to both exist (in order to have the power to act) and not exist (in order to be created) at the same time. This is a contradiction - an illogical position to take. Based on all known scientific understanding and logic we know that from nothing, nothing comes. Therefore, this is not a legitimate response. A person arguing this has violated the law of non-contradiction and is ignoring good science. This now leaves two possible choices: The universe has always existed (no beginning): Atheists in times past used to affirm that the universe had always existed which was proved wrong by the second law of thermodynamics. The second law states that the universe is slowly running out of useable energy. If the universe had always existed it would have ran out of useable energy by now. The fact that the universe still contains useable energy indicates that it is not infinitely old - it had a beginning. The universe had to be created: Since the universe could not create itself and it had to have a beginning, the only logical solution is that the universe had to be created! This leaves us with the original question to the evolutionist, “Where did the matter come from to create the universe?” Any reply not recognising that the universe was created ignores the laws of science and good logic. The common perception presented in many text books and in the media is that life arose from non-life in a pool of chemicals about 3.8 billion years ago. The claim by evolutionists is that this formation of life was the result of time, chance, and natural processes. It is well known that biological molecules (specifically amino acid bonds) are destroyed in the presence of oxygen, making it impossible for life to evolve. Oxygen is a poisonous gas that oxidises organic and inorganic materials on a planetary surface; it is quite lethal to organisms that have not evolved protection against it [P. Ward and D. Brownlee, Rare Earth, p.245] In the atmosphere and the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. [C. Thaxton, W. Bradley, and R. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, p.66] Therefore, in order to avoid this problem, evolutionists propose that earth’s first atmosphere did not contain any freestanding oxygen; however evolutionists then proceed to dig themselves into a deeper hole (as which is often the case). 1. There is no scientific proof that the Earth ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere such as evolutionists require. Earth’s oldest rocks contain evidence of being formed formed in an oxygen atmosphere. [H. Clemmey and N. Badham, “Oxygen in the Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence,” Geology 10: 141] 2. In that scenario, a fatal problem also arises. Since the ozone is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. It there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton in his book: Evolution A Theory in Crisis notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t have oxygen, we have none either. Because life could not have originated on land, some evolutionists propose that life started in the oceans. The problem with life starting in the oceans, however, is that as original molecules formed; the water would have immediately destroyed them through a process called hydrolysis. Hydrolysis, which means “water splitting,” is the addition of a water molecule between two bonded molecules (two amino acids in this case), which causes them to split apart. Many scientists have noted this problem. Besides breaking up polypeptides, hydrolysis would have destroyed many amino acids [Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology Vol. 1, p. 411-412] In general the half lives of these polymers in contact with water are on the order of days and months - time spans which are surely geologically insignificant. [K. Dose, The Origin of Life and Evolutionary Biochemistry p. 69] Furthermore, water tends to break chains of amino acids apart. If any proteins had formed in the oceans 3.5 billion years ago, they would have quickly disintegrated. [R Morris, The Big Questions, p. 167] Scientifically, there is no known solution for how life could have chemically evolved on the earth. Let’s look at some other interesting facts of life: First, there are over 300 different types of amino acids. However, only 20 different amino acids are used in life. Second, each type of amino acid molecule comes in two shapes commonly referred to as left-handed and right-handed forms. Only left-handed amino acids are used in biological proteins; however, the natural tendency is for left and right handed amino molecules to bond indiscriminately. Third, the various left-handed amino acids must bond in the correct order or the protein will not function properly [Mike Riddle, Can Natural Processes Explain The Origin of Life?] Scientists know today that it is only because of the instructions (information) in DNA that only left-handed amino acids are linked in the proper order. Cells link amino acids together into proteins, but only according to INSTRUCTIONS encoded in DNA and carried in RNA. [G.B. Johnson, Biology: Visualising Life, p. 193] DNA, RNA, and proteins all need each other as an integrated unit. Even if only one of them existed, the many parts needed for life could not sit idle and wait for the other parts to evolve because they would dissolve or deteriorate. Since scientists have been unable to create life, they are forced to speculate through research and sometimes “sleight of hand” how it “might” have arrived on earth. Such as: - It happens naturally “The formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random” [Ian Musgrave, “Lies, Damned lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations,” TalkOrigins] Explanation This is an incorrect statement. If it happens naturally, then why can't scientists duplicate this in the lab? Amino acids do not spontaneously bond together to make proteins. First, it takes a source of energy to do this. Second, the natural tendency is to bond left- and right-handed amino acids, but life requires all left-handed amino acids. Third, they must be in the correct order or the protein will not function properly. Fourth, it requires the instructions of DNA to get the right amino acids. Where did DNA come from? Fifth, protein molecules tend to break down in the presence of oxygen or water. Questions for evolutionists Where and how did DNA acquire the enormous amount of information (instructions) to form a protein? There is no known natural explanation that can adequately explain the origin of life, or even a single protein. Since oxygen is known to destroy molecular bonds, and since the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere (meaning no ozone) would cause all potential life to be destroyed by ultraviolet rays, how could life have formed? Since water breaks down the bonds between amino acids (a process called hydrolysis), how could life have started in the oceans? Using all their intelligence and all the modern advances in science, have scientists ever created DNA or RNA in a laboratory through unguided naturalistic processes? Is there any observed case where random chance events creates complex molecules with enormous amounts of information like that found in DNA or RNA?