The Fallacy of Atheism - Shaykh Hamza Yusuf | Funny Story

[@yeyejyj8774]

La ilaha illaAllah mohamad rasolAllah .

[@NeonBlueRX7]

The arrogance of some people. You can't even look at your laptop or phone without eventually getting blinded partially. You can't look at the sun for more than a few seconds or else you go blind. And you expect to be able to see the Creator?

[@Alburr250]

If He isn’t showing Himself to us, it’s with a reason which we cannot comprehend.

[@saadusman6617]

@@Alburr250 if we could see Allah, then this dunya is not a test

[@UmbroKhan]

i like Shaykh Hamza Yusuf video. thank you

[@MrsZambezi]

You like nonsense?

[@samsingh6643]

you are a cake

[@Saber23]

Trev C no that's why we're not atheists cause all they spew is a bunch of fucking nonsense

[@lordnilsson1]

@@Saber23 You are just indoctrinated to believe since childhood. And if you don't follow that.... you'll be left alone or killed by the other indoctrinated fools..! That's a Neanderthal legacy !

[@Saber23]

Lord Nilsson considering my parents aren’t practicing Muslims no I really wasn’t and you just made the ultimate assumption so it’s you who’s thinking like a Neanderthal you idiot and I don’t think you know how indoctrination works since Islamic theology literally encourages questioning and using your reason and yes we have the death penalty for apostasy if the apostate is trying to actively fight against Islam publicly what’s wrong with that? Every western country has severe punishments for defectors from the state so how is this any different? And it also depends how you see the world and the universe if you think the human being and individualism are the most important things then sure you’d think this is bad but if you see it from a Muslims perspective Allah, the messenger and the AhlulBayt are the most important things and they get placed above all else so yeah please educate yourself bud

[@farhan00]

PLEASE STOP PUTTING BACKGROUND HUMMING! IT IS VERY VERY DISTRACTING!!!

[@xorpe7172]

HmmmmhmmmMmmMmmmmmmmmmmmmMMMMMMMHHmmmmmmmHhMmmmmmmmmmHmmMmMmmmmmmmmmm....

[@yafetteshome9515]

@@xorpe7172 3 years too late for this reply lol

[@EB-gt1pq]

@@xorpe7172 😂

[@cinmhmd894]

how water appear in the sky from nowhere and how all electrons organize in to a lightning without the higher intelligent organizer it would be impossible.

[@jaymesmccrob9356]

cin mhmd Are you fucking serious?

[@balabola1881]

+Jaymes McCrob yes he is. All the natural forces in the universe are created by God/Allah. And they are continually sustained. What in the equation of gravity tells you that there has to be a constant gravitational force for millions of year or even for the next second?

[@RD-ke8mz]

@@balabola1881 and @cim you have to thank not only Allah, but also those who made equations so that you could understand gravity and discovered equations. If this would not happening me and you and those who argue on the internet would still live in the caves... Sadly most of the poorest countries still belive but have no clue of the world around them. So sad...

[@jamesburmester8861]

The point made is a good point: So called religious population doesn't generally have the proper philosophical rebuttal to take on the atheistic population that attacks them.

[@mzuwt]

Debunking Atheism kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6nZdoVmYr1krZo

[@Muhammad12035three]

It's not as much as philosophy as it is being interested in arguments for the sake of humiliating the other side instead of learning from them. Philosophy is the love of wisdom and atheism isn't a wise idea.

[@md.kowshicknahian2782]

The full lecture is removed can you please upload again and give the link here

[@Ismu13]

The terms belief, and believers itself mean that God can not be investigated and he is out of our comprehension. God himself has called those who believe him believers................Why? bcz that is the human nature he designed in this Universe, then only there is test here. but his signs are obvious in nature and to study that is our responsibility as mentioned by God

[@MrsZambezi]

What does this god have apart from scripture? Nothing. Zilch. It is as real as Harry Potter.

[@ericmishima]

"Cannot be investigated" "out of our comprehension" "his signs are obvious" You're incomprehensible, mate.

[@FawadKhalil77]

السلام علیکم ورحمتہ اللہ Where can I get a book on Radd-u-Sshubuhat? جزاک اللہ خیر

[@NeonBlueRX7]

Read the book called " why God won't go away: neurobiology of belief"/ If you want to talk about non-religious proof of God, look up Michio Kaku's arguments. If you want to ponder on something yourself, remember God is the best engineer. Your human body will always surpass the potential of any machine your perfect and yet imperfect mind can make . We have limitations and potentials for a reason. we were created with unequal finger lengths for a reason. We have dreams for a reason. God is so amazing and sometimes so scary tbh, that He can design our perfectly beautiful world (universe) and make it seem random because of just how precise HE is.

[@suli568]

One of his names is Al-Lateef out of the 99 names in Islam for (God) (The true religion). Which means: "The Subtle one". And who can be more Subtle than God. (Allah) Himself. He lives up to each of his 99 names and more.

[@docfakhra]

Where is the rest of the video?? I wnt to see more! Please jzk

[@inkofknowledge]

Full lecture: Global Tawbah by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf | Malaysia 2014 (full lecture)

[@docfakhra]

thanks!

[@ziad9596]

the full lecture was removed, can u upload it again

[@alvirahman2270]

can you name the music at the end of the video?

[@AttRandyReynolds]

I had no idea Johnny Depp was a Muslim.

[@HamzaHGreen]

Hahaha!!!

[@al-furqan7304]

im laughin

[@hihello1297]

I don’t get it

[@TypicalMrGamer]

@@hihello1297 www.google.ie/search?q=Johnny+Depp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnzo_ej5jeAhVHAsAKHRcZBW4Q_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=636#imgrc=TWXv-Ibw5oPD7M:

[@hihello1297]

Yasser A they don’t look that similar

[@iamking7785]

*Why Suffering/evil poses a Problem for Atheists?* We do not think this is an issue for the athiest and is only an excuse they to try make in order seem as if it validates their lying stance in defiance of GOD. Why do We think this? Because most of the suffering and pain people go through is not done by GOD on them in some supernatural way, rather it is the doing of people upon people, not done by GOD on to HIS creation. Thus, in Surah Falaq, "...from the evil of whatever HE has created,..." Which means, "...from the evil of whatever _(comes out from what)_ HE has created,..." and supposedly if it is not meant this, then it would supposely mean that ALLAH/GOD is evil and does evil upon HIS creatures, as for the reasons why athiest always say, IF ALLAH is a Merciful Deity/GOD, then why is there evil, suffering, pain etc. in the world, implying as if evil comes from ALLAH, and without a doubt, ALLAH is the GOOD, the MERCIFUL, and not evil. Further more "but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself” _(al-Nisa’ 4:79)_, means that calamities, which are referred to here as “evil”, are created by mankind himself. And “And whatever of misfortune befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned. And He pardons much” _(al-Shoora 42:30)_. When ALLAH Ta’ala intended to create each thing, HE determined when it would come into existence and when it would cease to exist. HE also determined its qualities and nature. In addition, everything in the universe, the seen and the unseen, is completely subject to the Power of ALLAH. Nothing can happen outside the will of ALLAH Ta’ala. Hence only by ALLAH's Will is any mind, wind, angel, etc. able to do anything, as per nature of the creation that ALLAH/GOD has made, and not that evil comes from ALLAH, rather its in the nature of creation _(mainly man and jinn, otherwise only by men and jinn)_ who do evil, wickedness, cause sufferring, and that it is not of ALLAH's doing, but only that ALLAH has allowed such to be since that is what those creatures of HIS intend to do, whilst know, "What comes to you of good is from ALLAH , but what comes to you of evil, _(O mankind)_, is from yourself. And WE have sent you, _(O Beloved Prophet S.A.W)_, to the people as a Messenger, and sufficient is ALLAH as Witness." _(Quran, 4:79)_ “Say: ‘All things are from ALLAH’” _(al-Nisa’ 4:78)_, i.e., everything happens by the will and decree of ALLAH, which applies to the righteous and evildoer, to the believer and disbeliever, alike. ‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah said, narrating from Ibn ‘Abbas: “Say: ‘All things are from ALLAH” i.e., both good and bad. Al-Hasan al-Basri said something similar. And if any athiest says, why did GOD make the feeling of pain? This is the most dumbest thought ever, why? The feeling pain is means to save or protect yourself, how? Had someone been wounded in place they could not see such as on their back, _(and if people had no feeling of pain)_ then the wounded person would not know that they are injured and potentially could be at the risk of death, hence for any athiest to say in ragards to why do humans or creatures feel pain _(as made by GOD for those creatures)_ is a fallacy and proves the athiests obsession of GOD which is the natural state of mankind to know GOD exists, yet they knowingly deny and defy GOD, and that is their GOD given choice as all things will have a reaction later, due to what they chose to cause upon theirselves. And ALLAH is the Just, the All Knowing. Also bear in mind, the Highest form of Tafsir is when the Quran explains itself. Also read 👇 www.equranlibrary.com/tafseer/maarifulquranenglish/113/2 *And ALLAH Knows best*

[@christinajurzis5718]

💕💕😇

[@cielbleu1684]

Jazakum Allah kheiran

[@mohammedhossen8204]

Is there a link for the full lecture? Apparently KZbin has it blocked

[@jaymesmccrob9356]

Mohammed Hossen Don't bother, this guy doesn't know shit.

[@muhaiminsultan5827]

@@jaymesmccrob9356 Clearly you didn't listen to a word he said

[@ahmedg85]

why do people ruin these clips by adding a background track

[@burgeulfassal1523]

bad taste and avoiding copyright

[@johnblunt7650]

It's funny how atheists are trying to deny god's existence. Even if you deny it till your death, He is still there. And He doesnt need you at all. And also you forget that it's just the universe that works after the cause Prinziple. What atheists also like to Do is that they to actually understand and comprehend god himself. Of course, if you compare god with a human, then it's easy to bring arguments against him. But yeah, I'm stupid since I'm a believer right?Doesnt matter anyway we're moving towards the end of times anyway. Call me crazy or whatever you want, people have done the same throughout History. Maybe you will be convinced if you're being judged by god. May Allah bless you and guide you to the right path

[@RD-ke8mz]

the fact that you're moving towards the end of times means that you should still behave and live like a caveman? May Allah bless you and guide you to the right path.

[@ericmishima]

It's not denial of the only god you worship's existence. Its denial that the claim of any god that's been described has met its burden of proof. If there was a god he should probably know that.

[@meedoadam]

the name of the song (and the singer) at the end of the video please!

[@1DomBennett]

The only person on this thread who has talked any logical sense is Katie Anderson.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

Has anyone ever provided evidence of 'nothing'?

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

Saieid Ashik, atheism is a single position on a single claim: non-acceptance of the god claim. How is that evidence of ‘nothing’?

[@yeleukenov]

The humming is annoying, please turn it down or remove it completely

[@UmbroKhan]

nice video

[@sissiezelinski6679]

The answer to one question that has no bearing on anything else needs a whole video?

[@michaeljack6830]

You believe because you don't see. If you see you don't believe, But you're confident. Blind faith never leads to heaven, But hell.

[@ArefinSiddiquee]

why there is a fucking uoouoouoouoouooo music in the background .

[@joshboston2323]

Something can’t come from nothing? What do you mean by nothing? We have never observed nothing..

[@Sweeti924]

That’s why I say atheist and agnostic and others like them are the most ignorant people on earth 🌍 so here we are again we gonna teach adults what’s nothing man/woman can you please go back to your school I swear it’s good place for you and you learn a lot of things

[@joshboston2323]

@@Sweeti924 Oh, im quite educated actually; not that I think that means that I am always logical. I've seen brilliant students being awful debaters. My point is, atheists and agnostics (most of them) do not claim that "something came from nothing". It is very often a strawman of the religious to claim this.

[@Sweeti924]

@@joshboston2323 but didn’t you just say (we have never observed nothing) and you’re saying to you are educated 🤔 you must be cheated i will report you jk btw but how in the world 🌎 someone who is adult would talk like this this is beyond my intellect I Cannot comprehend this

[@Sweeti924]

@@joshboston2323 and btw have you looked into Quran it’s really rational and logical even tho it talks about heaven and hell and other things and it talks about sun 🌞 and moon 🌙 and it have many scientific facts unlike other scriptures but and keep in your mind this is from 1400 years ago a man in the desert 🐪 who didn’t had what we have now and think about it reflect on it ask scholars if you have any question about anything in the Quran and I hope you may found the truth keep in your mind let me give you an example If what atheist says is true and we all die and nothing happens to us that means We are safe but what if there’s god that means you’re in trouble 😈 and I’m safe again both way I’m safe but you will regret it and this life is too short yesterday you were 10 years old and now you’re young and tomorrow you will be old and you will die don’t listen to those so called atheist but look for truths always and I hope you will find the truth soon before you die because this life is too short and you’re born and locked 🔒 to atheist think about your life and make sure you’re in save place when you die and there’s nothing and you will be still in safeness

[@joshboston2323]

@@Sweeti924 I think you do not understand what i am saying. English must not be your first language.

[@grandmastersunshine9220]

the design thing is so old. its hard to believe that there are people so stupid falling for it.

[@MCK35]

This video reminds me of a joke: A theologist talked to a biologist: T: "Hey, we found a way to get rid of you". B: "How?" T: "We proved that the universe didn't come from nothing". B: "How?" T: "Well, first there was God...." B: "Wait a minute... where did He come from?" Nothing comes from nothing. Either that or cosmic dust also "always existed".

[@NeonBlueRX7]

God is not simply abeing. He is the author of all existence. That cosmic force that decided to originate our universe and realm and bring the big bang into play is God. He is the only absolute, He is the originator

[@cicunkuk]

Tyson says "we don't know what we don't know" so it's too naive for human asking the origins of God. Do you still believe ants can beat a man?

[@Muhammad12035three]

So you're just saying, cosmic dust came from nothing it is the same lazy idea again. It always existed on its own? What? This is actually denying the big bang theory. While Allah/God that's the reason of all of existence and beyond our comprehension, the source of life itself, the starting period of our existence is nothing from your point of view? "Where does he come from?" Is a fallacious question to begin with, he is existence.

[@seekpeaceread6798]

Atheist will always pass in life without any benefits, but with invention that never last.

[@J4c081]

He said these theories have been around since Socrates and their scholars have dealt with them. I can't help but find this funny seeing as Socrates was executed for blasphemy and denouncing gods. What a great morality religion brings.

[@Adil1amin]

J4c081 lol as if Nihilism could bring morality.

[@İstikbalİslamın]

Socrates was not executed by Muslims. And indeed Muslim scholars have dealt with them. It's time to read their books and you can find yourself.

[@BlaBla-ny4bo]

"It does not explain where the original material came from" Yes it can just claim that the universe is a loop which by definition has no beginning as well es you can claim to know there is a coward in the sky.

[@pjq420]

atheist : we only could believe what was proven sciencetifically. muslim : we only had philosophy combination with some science used. people : where were the historical record for each single person since they're born. can it be proven that their history exist, meaning the past time? also for the situations where the person wasn't being yet, where were they at that time? Muslim: we still repeating the same answer according to Islamic's views and the science research achieved at the present time to create our argument. atheist : .......history don't exist. my unborn period also don't exist. therefore I'm convinced I'm just a fake character. i'm nothing equals nothingness. people : also how to prove that? atheist : I'm really have to leave the life right now, OK;?

[@elCoronelCC]

The Biologist (Biology is the Science of Life) says: we can explain Life without god. That is exactly his field expertise. This is essential, as religions all claim they know where life comes from. When they clearly just have stories. And every religion has its own story. So of course science that makes it ts goal to find truth has to contradict all religions (which Evolution does) unless one religion is right. But they can't all be right. And Islam's story is not better than any other religion's story. They are just simple stories. Religious people may well believe in them. But if the believes contradict facts or reality, then it is exactly the Biology teachers job to tell the children.

[@balabola1881]

+el Coronel are you a biologist? if not, you yourself believe in the stories, but not in the stories of theologists but those of biologists. And in every era, the science is called 'facts'. And these 'facts' are later disproven and corrected by science of the later era.

[@Mahmood42978]

To be more accurate they can explain how species evolve, they cannot explain the actual mechanisms of abiogenesis. ie. how life itself came into being. There are models and postulations; but not anything concrete....as of yet at least.

[@elCoronelCC]

bala bola Are you religious? Religion's argument is to never learn, never actually look at reality but believe what some people in the past have written into a book forever. Things that are long disproved. Read your sentence again and think about what religion is. It just does NOT change even if proven wrong. What is the smarter position? You did describe the scientific process correctly. But you did not use the word fact as it is used scientifically. Facts are not altered. Theories are disproved by facts. Theories, ie the explanation for an observation of facts, are discarded if they don't match up with new facts. It might even be the case that a theory is already disproved at the time it is formulated; it might well be that people, including biologists make mistakes or just don't know about facts. Have you ever learned biology in school? It certainly reads like you have not. You can observe and reason about findings in biology yourself. That goes for all sciences. Try to do it. And then try and reason about claims of religious texts. Maybe you will notice a difference.

[@thewarlock539]

el Coronel matter of fact is that if a religion (e.g. islam) is proven 100% wrong, the believers have one of 2 choices, blindly follow or leave. problem is some religions havent been proven wrong, not even by 50%. this is why you see some religions (like islam again) have a high leave rate but an even higher convert rate.

[@sundasbutt7808]

to whoever makes these videos, we dont need that stupid humming in the background.

[@Tenzek]

1) The study of life is biology, not cosmology. You may tie the origin of life to cosmology via theistic claims, but stick to theology and leave science to the scientists. However, we cannot explain the origin of life in any case, so that teacher did overstate biology. 2) If you're claiming that your beliefs are in agreement with cosmology, then should I assume that you accept that creation is impossible? If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then there is no possibility of "nothing" in the first place. Matter had to always exist. You may disagree with that, but only philosophically and against all evidence that we have. You cannot claim to be dealing with cosmology while holding a view that contradicts its foundation. 3) If you think we should accept that there was a state of non-existence which necessitated a creator to get beyond, then please explain why we should do so without appealing to emotion, faith or simple incredulity. If your logical arguments depend on faith-based premises, then we cannot distinguish them from any other faith claims or religions.

[@srada123]

1) That is, if you want to draw a hard line between biology and cosmology where the two don't intersect. Also, life is sometimes not only used in the sense of biological life but also for whatever we observe in the universe. That's not strange since if you look at the periodic table you will see 114 plus elements. These elements are all dead. Put some of them in a certain combination and we speak of a living creature (which still consists of dead elements). Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking says "It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion." Anyway, that's about all I want to say about that hard distinction you made. What I do want to discuss is origin and the concept of God. To talk about God one needs a concept of God otherwise we don't know what is being denied or affirmed. So I might agree with people that God doesn't exist or that there's a lack of evidence for God, depending on their concept of God. I will describe where my first notion of God comes from. Note that this is about the CONCEPT of God and not about ATTRIBUTES (such as forgiving, punishing, etc) of God: The nature of an explanation is that we mention a dependency relationship. For example, if I want to explain how clouds are formed I would need to mention the sun, pressure, temperature, humidity, etc. Now if we look at the nature of our universe we see that everything out there is dependent on what happened the day before. Explaining today requires mentioning a dependency relationship with the day before. So today is dependent on yesterday. Yesterday is dependent on the day before, etc. If the past were infinite, TODAY would never be. We would still be 'in past'. But today DOES exist. Therefore the dependency line must be finite. Now 'nothing' is not something entitled 'nothing'. 'Nothing' is defined as having no properties whatsoever and therefore cannot CAUSE the origin of that line. So the origin of that line MUST have independent properties. So God is conceptualized as: one independent from everything else. Note that the argument is not "I can't explain it therefore God did it" but the argument is 'I can infer an independent point and I call that point G.o.d'. So it's not strange that science, that is the field that describes dependencies, does not concern itself with God. By definition science stops if it reaches an independent point (a point that has no before it). But that doesn't mean God (as conceptualized above) does not exist. God is the source of the dependencies we see today. So can we EXPLAIN life? Yes: life/the dependencies we see today is ultimately due to an independent source (God). Can we DESCRIBE (science) the origin of life? No. A scientific desciption makes use of dependencies. I have taken that essence of a description and inferred an independent point. So does my reasoning conflict with science? No.

[@srada123]

2) I agree with you that there is no possiblity of 'nothing' in the first place. But you say 'matter had to always exist' and you claim there is evidence for it. That amazes me because that view is not in line with what we observe today. What we see today is that matter is moving and transitioning from one state to another. If you say that matter had to always exist then that could imply 2 things (correct me if I'm wrong). The first one being that there were an infinite amount of states that have led to the state of today. But as I have reasoned before: if the past were infinite TODAY would never be, we would still be 'in past'. The following mind experiment clears it up: - Suppose you want to pick up a glass in front of you. You decide to pick it, then you pick it, and it's the end of the experiment. - Now let's do this experiment again, except for now you need permission of another guy sitting next to you. So you ask permission from this guy, this guy says yes and you pick up the glass. End of experiment. - Now let's do this experiment yet another time, except for now the guy sitting next to you needs permission from a second guy. So you ask permission from the guy sitting next to you, and this guy asks permission from the second guy. The second guy says yes to the first guy, the first guy says yes to you and you pick up the glas. End of experiment. - Now let's do this experiment again, but this time there are infinite guys which need to be sought permission of. I take it we can agree that you will never reach the point to pick up the glass in this last experiment. Similarly if yesterday were to be dependent on an infinite amount of prior states, yesterday would have never reached the point to cause today. But today DOES exist. Now the second thing you could imply with 'matter had to always exist' is that matter is independent. That matter exists in itself. That there were a finite amount of state transitions in the past and at the beginning matter itself decided to move. If I look at a pebble (=matter) I see that it's shape is constrained. I take it in your view 'natural laws' (which have no shape) have constrained the shape of the pebble: the pebble is subjugated by the 'natural laws'. Wind (=something outside the pebble, also matter) can make the pebble move. The pebble (=matter) cannot be classed as a self-existing entity as it interacts with something outside of it. So why would you deem the pebble (=matter) part of a self-existing entity? The state of the pebble (=matter) is dependent on something outside of it. The matter that makes up the pebble cannot be deemed independent, it's enslaved/forced. I can do this same exercise for a tree, water, the sun, any object. So tell which matter in our universe that exists in itself, that is independent, that has always existed, that can DECIDE.

[@srada123]

3) The shaykh in the video never said that we should accept a state of non-existence. What he implies is that the criteria for something to always exist is that it should be independent (God). Everything we see out there in the universe is dependent. One cannot assign independent properties to the things we see in the universe. Hence God (=one independent from anything else) is a good explanation for today. There is no emotion or such envolved in coming to that conclusion.

[@Tenzek]

srada123 He's arguing creation from an initial state of non-existence, so he is, in fact, requiring non-existence. If there was never a state of non-existence, his argument would be pointless. I don't see how you can say that accepting one of his argument's foundational assumptions is not necessary for his argument. This is how arguments work - if you accept the conclusion, it implies you accept the premises it is based on. Everything we see out there is subject to energy conservation. It cannot be created or destroyed, so a state of total non-existence is unsupported.

[@srada123]

Tenzek I see where you're coming from. Let me clear up some things first to be sure we're talking about the same thing. There is a difference between what you say 'He's arguing creation from an initial state of non-existence' and what I stated before 'The shaykh in the video never said that we should accept a state of non-existence.' Being acquainted with the concept of God in Islam and having watched many of the shaykh's videos I can understand the shaykh's statements such as 'non-existence cannot bring existence' and 'you cannot get (dependent) something from nothing, there has to be a (independent) source behind it' in their proper context. So what I meant with 'The shaykh in the video never said that we should accept a state of non-existence' is that the shaykh is pleading for the case that there always has been existence, and that that existence must be independent (God). When you say 'He's arguing CREATION from an initial state of non-existence' I hope I understand this in the proper way. Because when there was no creation, there was (according to the shaykh) still the independent existence (God). So technically speaking there never was no non-existence. But if you consider only the domain of CREATION, then yes there was a point where CREATION was non-existent. Then the Creator caused creation. If creation had to always exist, then that would mean that creation is independent (which it is clearly not).

[@jerryrodriguez669]

If God has always been and He created the Universe, why not just say that the Universe has always been?

[@guy5140]

Because God is much more than the universe

[@lDeath489]

Because from our knowledge, evidence and by using logic we already established that the universe had a beginning meaning it didn't exist at some point which means there was nothing, our definition of nothing means there was no space, time and material. We can't imagine or handle what's within or even before "nothing" because we are part of this dying universe and we are limited creatures who do mistakes.( is nothing looks like a black color everywhere ?. that's something within the universe too so who knows what's nothing lol , we only know it by saying the absent of everything within this unicerse but we can't imagine the real deal)" Now that we know nothing(lol) and understood that there was a cause that created this universe from nothing. this cause surely must be stronger than anything within the universe, it must be stronger than the law of gravity..etc That cause shouldn't have the properties of this universe. So if there is origin/source of power or entity or cause before existing of this universe it will be beyond our universe which caused this universe into existing, that's why muslims says whatever image you create 0f GOD it will immediately be part of this universe which means it is not GOD. ( This is the first time i say this, it is just a guess from me )We are separate physically but this origin/source of power is connected to us somehow in a way we can't describe it by our selfs , it is reasonable, why?. because if a cause from outside the universe caused us it must have a some sort of relationship/effect to cause us, there must be a link. That's why this universe is expanding, If this universe suddenly ended(power supply stopped) , it is only reasonable that it will shrink to nothing, meaning all matter will return to the source/cause not to nothing. But that all of this does't necessarily effect the source since it existed before the universe and will stay the same after it. That's why the source is ( absolute ) while universe is not ( what have a beginning have an end ) We say this universe is designed, there are many signs of this, just the fact that we can grasp logic in this universe it shows that it is a logical universe which is a sign of design not randomness. If that's the case than this entity is not only powerful, it is intelligent.etc to the point that we can't even imagine, our methods of science..etc only scratch the surface of how our own body works let alone the universe and how anything existed. So we will never know by our own effort how to create an ant let alone know anything about before this universe. That's why if this entity exist and there are claims of this entity communicated to us than we must take it seriously because it may provide us for the reason why do we exist. ( Like a manual that contain purpose and everything this entity think is relevant to us ). To tell us why do we have a limited life. Why we are dying. These are serious questions. Not a joke , if there are answers and we are acting arrogance than it will be our fault. Another sign that we have a task is that we are moral creatures, it is in our nature. So how do we know what's right and wrong?. If everything is random and meaningless it means whatever we do or say is all pointless, even our survival is pointless especially after acknowledging that there is extremely high chance if not a fact that this universe will end, randomness contradict with everything in science meaning there shouldn't be logic. If you check how ALLAH describe himself you will see that it apply to what's before this universe and that it is extremely logical. That's just one point. Forgive me if i did a mistake. Trying my best , hope you get my point ^^.

[@ericmishima]

@@lDeath489 how can 'nothing' BE? What could it possibly mean for 'nothing' to EXIST? It seems to scientists though that as far as they know energy cannot be created or destroyed. So potentially energy can always exist. You cant possibly know anything before Plank time.

[@lDeath489]

@@ericmishima [in our perspective] We came into existing from [non existing state]. That's what nothing means [To us]. Anything we observe is part of this universe, anything we observe had a beginning. Anything with a beginning means it didn't exist prior that beginning. That's what the big bang concludes. That this universe and whatever we find in it didn't exist prior to the big bang. Energy[as we perceive it] didn't exist prior to the big bang. The fact that we use/learn energy is evidence that it is part of our universe, part of us. Laws of the universe were formed from that big bang. So laws/physics such as '' energy cannot be created or destroyed '' doesn't apply to that moment according to science and logic too.

[@lDeath489]

@@ericmishima look for [imam ali عليه السلام on the nature of god] and you will understand this perspective. Our brains looking for logic and consistency. That's how we find truth and fix our mistakes.

[@contrafidem2035]

Atheist: "Biologists can explain why living organs are naturally arranged this way." Theist: "Yeah, but where did the elements come from?" This is a classical logical fallacy of Moving the Goalposts coming from the theist.

[@Johnsmith-fm3oh]

its not moving the goal posts its the Original Question...its the real question....a question that atheist can not deal with....this is the deadend of science.....the atheist need to be more honest...athiests don't know and neither does theists...but at least theists say its faith when Atheists use faith but try to convince everyone they only rely on science when truly they use faith in their science and in their everyday life but the atheists are to afraid to use the F word

[@thewarlock539]

John smith i tip my hat to you, what an answer

[@MrsZambezi]

Theists claim they know because it is written, atheists say they don't know which is far more honest.

[@HassanalBolkiahSoyjak]

ath*sts have no logic to begin with, simply ask then what is the very first cause of everything, and they have no answer. The cosmological argument is more than enough to refute them

[@leemansuleiman5907]

Mehn Interesting video. It's so cool to see how someone can be on his high horse spewing bullshit when he isn't challenged.

[@mrwolf31]

You cannot get something from nothing... Define "nothing"? Plus, not all atheist believe we came from nothing. We just don't know yet, and it's okay to not know something. We don't know all whats deep inside our oceans. It's okay to not know. A wrong answer is still a wrong answer to an unknown phenomena.

[@hafizyen1280]

Dik 2 big 4 pusi you atheist better hurry up the world is near to end. you'll knew it better than other human can't do anything's there was a limit for human but soul doesn't the real deal is this after life so make sure you past this test in this world or being a wood in hell fire.

[@mzaestudiante]

so you are saying atheists are wrong, if I am correct, yes? as are the religious. and in that wrongness, if you cannot define that something, then that something is either undefinable by you 'yet', as you have also stated, or undefinable full stop. by using the yet, you imply that there is a destination that will certainly be reached, and no, I do not imagine you mean by you yourself, but by human understanding, if I gather correctly still? so then, what if it is beyond your capacity, ever? then that means you are most certainly wrong, would it not? for full disclosure, I am neither a science-enthusiast nor a religion-enthusiast, but if I were required to choose the one which I, personally, felt was on more shaky ground, it would have to be the modern understanding of science, the science cult, where (not you, but the masses of those who use their so-called belief in 'science' as a weapon) followers are merely that and nothing else, not students, not finders, not those who seek understanding. No, modern 'science' is as ass-backwards and self-ignorant as anything going, seeming to forget that much of what science was founded on (geometry is good for this) is based on postulates, and, well, the definition of postulates says it all.

[@Alburr250]

This is for you Richard Dawkins.

[@TourAndTravelchannel-rm1in]

ماشاءاللہ Perfect answer

[@ritchiediggs]

Petitio Principii: that old joke is funny, I guess, but sneakily it slips in a ‘little principle’ that wasn’t agreed to beforehand: that the Cosmic Dust mentioned when God says ‘get your own dust’, actually belongs to God. And the notion of ‘cosmic dust’ is rather poetic than scientific. No astrophysicist will write ‘cosmic dust’ in a paper lest they were using it as a poetic device. Matter, including living beings, is obviously composed of physical-chemical elements in the universe, and struggle from basic self-replicating molecules, to uni-, then multi-cellular organisms that prosper or perish depending on environmental conditions. The numbers that perish outnumber by far! the ones that thrive. If this is the doing of your God, then he is malevolent, bumbling, woeful designer that has to keep going back to the drawing board to correct the biology of species as they progress in their careers as organisms. This God of his has been pushed so far back by all the advances in thought, that he stakes his entire claim to universal design upon cosmic dust. Not one thing this fellow says is philosophically coherent. It’s amazing how one who seems to be a bit familiar with the material can have such a skewed and erroneous understanding of it. The Islamic scholars and philosophers like Al Ghazali whom he talked about propounded refutations no different than Aquinas and Anselm. The more serious ones however, like ibn Rushd, and ibn Sina, and Omar Khayyam knew better, and offered a more coherent theory of the nature of the universe than the dogmatist sticking to divine attribution and nothing else.

[@M_J_TN]

What makes you think that It's " not supposed" to perish in the first place ? Also, What makes you think that life MUST go on and on ? considering "Death" as a bug in the system is your own assumption and it's a false premise ..... What you're basically doing is judging the situation based on your own personal subjective desire of what should be and what should not . It's understandable, you want to live , but that, does not make death or illness a "wrong" thing. You can Subjectively regard them as bad, but you cannot use it as an argument. death (perish) cannot be considered as an evidence of failure, on the contrary, Death plays a huge and a significant role in the ecosystem and in the development of species and is an essential part of our journey as human beings. Its literally one of the most important necessities for life to continue on earth.

[@M_J_TN]

Man, the number of logical fallacies in your comment is annoying. Subjectively Interpreting almost everything is not a good approach to understand how things really are. For example, what makes you choose "correction" as a description of what's going on ? How is it a "correction" ? It's like saying that "If creation X is not the way I want it to be, then your God is making a mistake, therefore your God is not omnipotent ", what makes you think that you're in a position which allows you to define how something should be and how it shouldn't be? Using what objective measures ? It's like looking at clouds or waves and assumimg that they shouldn't look that way.

[@MrsZambezi]

Atheism is a fact.

[@lenar.1691]

Trev C it isn't. And I'm an Atheist.

[@MrsZambezi]

You just proved yourself wrong!

[@lenar.1691]

Trev C why? :D I believe Atheism is right, but that doesn't mean it is right

[@MrsZambezi]

Theism is also a fact.

[@lenar.1691]

Trev C woups, then I have misunderstood you, I'm sorry:D then I don't understand what you mean :)

[@sniff4643]

"where did the original material come from?" How about this... We don't know? There is absolutely no scientific explanation or evidence explaining where material came from. So what's wrong with just saying "idk"? what IS wrong is refusing to admit you don't know, and instead say, "well it must have been a magical being in the sky who did it". No. lol.

[@madkidri]

There must be at least a reason for every situation, circumstance, and phenomenon that occurs. It only points out that to answer "i dont know" to every unexplainable phenomenon shows how narrow and limited the range of our reason can reach.

[@r3ggi3000]

This is why Hamza is NOT a scientist.

[@r3ggi3000]

+Farouk Mughal To what question?

[@lottiesodyssey5291]

hes not.... his defending faith as he is its representative like how sam harris defends athiesm and you

[@cerberus8856]

first thing every human learn as a child is recognising patterns, repetition, in an overall sense - designs. now we have scientists with high class knowledge that claims there is no design. Now I think human intellect is a pyramid some one passes over, once you go up there is nowhere to go but down again. Pathetic.

[@JoshGulick]

I don't understand. He says that biologists shouldn't talk about cosmology because it is a science they are not fully trained in, but it is okay for any imam to talk of such things because they just know the answers from the Book? Why shouldn't we require imams to have scientific training before they can talk of such things also?

[@JoshGulick]

محمد منصف I thought science is knowledge for which we have reasonable proof and evidence.Why would it ever really be right or good to say things that have been proven true are false? I don't understand.

[@JoshGulick]

محمد منصف Science is our best knowledge as far as I know. People knew the earth was round before the Quran was written as I understand it. Shouldn't we just believe the things that we can ALL know are true?

[@JoshGulick]

محمد منصف If science (humanity's collective evidenced knowledge base) grows and corrects, why shouldn't we reasonably consider it our best source of knowledge? True knowledge is what makes human lives better. It seems obvious in innumerable ways that modern science has made our lives much better than any and all of the knowledge of the Quran, right?

[@JoshGulick]

How about surah 51.49? I remember that one. It says that Allah created all things as pairs/ male and female. All things are not male and female. Actually MOST things on Earth are not male and female. The dominant form of life on our planet is bacterial, measured by individual numbers, total mass or by species number. Bacteria do not have pairs/male or female like the Quran teaches. Any way you look at it the Quran was scientifically wrong about the majority of life on our planet. That would have been a perfect place for Allah to teach about microorganisms to help save lives instead of misleading. Most, not all, animals (and some plants) we can see reproduce in pairs. Then there is the bit about how the quran teaches that the sun literally sets into a muddy spring... there are many flat earth references in the quran and hadith. I don't understand why I should respect the Quran scientifically, do you?

[@JoshGulick]

محمد منصف bacteria, the most abundant life on the planet, does not have two mates. It does not mate at all. Are all things really created as binary mating species? Obviously not. Why shouldn't I think that the Quran is incorrect in this assertion?

[@Ashoerchen]

The whole discussion is far too much marked by condescension and mutual sneers. I have no interest in that, and I deplore it. But to consider creationism, the approach presented in this video is too simplistic to satisfy. It does not go beyond the concept that everything you can't explain must come from god. It reverses the proof of burden: As long as you have no proof to the contrary, you must accept the existence of god, and hence, creation or intelligent design. But it's the other way round. Nothing that human quests in general and science in particular have found out so far - and it's quite a bit - proves the existence of a god. There was never a positive evidence about the existence of a god. So it's up to the creationists to prove that there is a god.

[@balabola1881]

+Ashoerchen Which scientists are there looking for God? There are no scientists looking for God. They r looking for cures to cancer. The Sufis of Islam are the scientists looking for God and they have experienced him and have seen miracles and they are telling you. But you don't believe those Sufis, you only believe the scientists, even though you yourself don't know the science that the scientists are doing.

[@hansfriend.9307]

You know when I used to be a muslim I used to look up to this man. Now looking back on it an what he has to say it's pretty much just as bad as the Christian apologists. "Something can't come from nothing! Therefore the only logical conclusion is that god gav a pedophile in the desert a magic book over 23 years that will detail everything you will ever need to believe and do in life! Except wait.. you also need hadith cause this perfect book that says it is completely clear ... isn't ... very clear... and we actually have a lot of interpretations and..... you know ... Cause God!"

[@thewarlock539]

Hans&Friend. you see, when i see a comment like this, i think one of 2 things 1) its a lie, from an obviously devious persob 2) its a genuine comment from an ex muslim who unfortunately knew very little about islam. so little that he uses points which his muslim family or friends destroy day in, day out.

[@christominello]

The Imam who fancies himself both cosmologist and biologist tells biologists to refrain from speculation on the chronology of biology. Yet, many theistic traditions can be studied scientifically, because some theologies make scientific claims, and Islam is not immune to this phenomenon, along with many other theologies. Aside from the obvious biological claims of the Christian bible, Christians believe Jesus "enters their hearts" and makes them more "Godly" or devout people, and more observant of God's wishes, which is false by any measurement. I do not know of any equivalent claims made in the Islamic tradition, but the Quran does claim to be infallible (Sura 4:82). With a standard that strict, a quick Google search could hollow out one's faith in the divine inspiration of the Quran with little effort. Science is beating religion in the war of ideas quite badly now, and religion needs to try harder if it doesn't want to fade into irrelevance within a century.

[@thewarlock539]

Christopher Tominello sir christopher, proove to me that the Quran is fallible

[@christominello]

Al Aseis Google it. I won't tell you what to believe. Since the Quran claims that the Quran is infallible, that means just one inaccuracy or inconsistency is enough to discredit the entire Quran. 10 seconds on google will illuminate this, do not make me do it for you.

[@thewarlock539]

Christopher Tominello but i have researched you see, and one thing to note is that every one of these arguments seems to have a better counter argument, so nothing of substantiallity has appeared to me. if you disagree and dont want to give examples, thats perfectly fine, thanks for the reply however :)

[@christominello]

Al Aseis For example, Sura 20 states that a Samaritan compelled the Israelites to worship a golden calf, whereas Samaritans did not exist as a people until 530 years after Moses.

[@thewarlock539]

Never heard that one before, that is interesting, lemme have a look :)

[@katieanderson9683]

The thing is; no one knows if there ever was a complete "nothing". According to the video, our thought process is suppose to be based on what we deem as logical, hence, we must assume that the universe had to have a beginning, just like everything else has. But then the video has us dismiss logic and presume that there was a physical god who manufactured everything. A physical god kind of goes contrary to "nothingness". But maybe the god has no physical structure and is a kind of spirit. Unfortunately, the supernatural is even less logical concept. We can't believe in "nothingness", but yet we are to believe in a spirit. Anyway, once you get by all of that, you are faced with the idea that the god who created everything billions of years ago, did not expire or die, and is not only still around, but has allegedly talked to certain people, usually people in the desert, and he has even written a book. It doesn't take much imagination to see why religions indoctrinate children, then reinforce that indoctrination almost daily throughout life with bowing, praying, and threats of eternal damnation for disbelief.

[@MrRiz157]

If there was nothing then there was "something". You know nothing about this something yet you think there was "something". Doesn't really provide any answers. Once you are sure of your "belief" do share, perhaps it can be looked at. Even that something needs something to exist and we believe it is God. The only One who is independent doesn't need another to exist, is Eternal. Self Sufficient, All Powerful, All Knowing etc has no beginning nor an end. Provide a better more complete answer, and you won't I promise. You will find your answers will be always be inadequate and incomplete until you accept God brought things into existence from nothing.

[@katieanderson9683]

rizwan rizwan Let's say there is a deck of cards; 52 cards. I am going to pick one card out of the deck. I believe that card is going to be the ace of spades. You can't tell me that the card I am going to draw isn't going to be the ace of spades. How could you; drawing the ace of spades is as likely as any other card. See, the thing is; you don't have to concoct some highly unlikely hypothesis, and then believe that hypothesis to be true, just because it seems like the best explanation for something unknown. It's okay to just "not know" and continue to do the research.

[@samia8210]

God has never been a "physical structure". He is not a "spirit" in the normal sense that we think of. A spirit made of light or anything similar is only what we can use to describe, or try to describe, in our language. Why is not possible for A being with infinite power that transcends time and space, and who created and gave life to everything around us? Why should we believe that the universe simply came into existence without an agent? Why should we believe that it just so happened that the perfect conditions existed for the formation of that one-celled thing, that apparently "Started" life on earth? Why cant God talk to people? Why should He NOT send down revelation? Why should God be subject to our whims and fancies, when If God exists, and may be beyond us in knowledge and wisdom?

[@MrRiz157]

Katie Anderson see that's where the argument of deck of cards isn't a valid argument to disapprove what i believe.I already agree with you that god you describe i dont believe in either. Can you explain what you think I believe God is?

[@katieanderson9683]

If a god can be anything, and I mean ANYTHING, then why put a word on it. Let's just use the word "anything"... I pray to anything.

[@Matthew_Holton]

A very weak trotting out of the same empty arguments used by Christian apologists.

[@sam7748]

Atheists and spiritually stunted people, welcome.

[@Matthew_Holton]

You think insulting people helps?

[@leonherperger4055]

isn't it contradictory to tell biologists to stay out of cosmology and yet, as a religiously biased speaker not only remark on cosmology but biology. matter forms in a vacuum. it's proven

[@lottiesodyssey5291]

with pre existing sub atomic particles

[@BlaBla-ny4bo]

And where does God came from ?????? He would need a startingpoint as well. Thats how you brain tricks you. And if he could have been there forever than one can claim that for the universe as well. Religion is just so stupid and boring.

[@lottiesodyssey5291]

yes and being hedonistic has no end

[@lewis72]

Oh, just so someone said it in Arabic, must be true. He's spouting utter shite.

[@nunnyahbixniz6709]

this guy makes a whole bunch of assumptions, without any verifiable, objective, universal, demonstrable, evidence or proof.

[@waqaransari8968]

Talking about proof and evidence, you don't have em either. Atheists don't follow evidence, they follow theorised models. You can't tell me that the cosmic dust theory of yours (or whatever it is called, which appeared after there being only helium and hydrogen molecules in the universe) is completely true and faultless, because it isn't. I'm not gonna take a topic and start a fruitless debate here, but don't make it seem like the words 'demonstration', 'proof', 'evidence', 'observation' etc are just there for the atheists to use. You guys love using complicated terms like 'cosmology' to overpower people following texts. But the fact is that you yourselves are following theories (which are ofc calculated not just stupidly said, but are still not proven to be fact). But since our prophet told us to be nice to everyone no matter how harsh they are, we're still gonna behave nicely to you.

[@nunnyahbixniz6709]

Hydrogen and helium can create the rest of the elements in solar factories known to all as THE SUN...

[@nunnyahbixniz6709]

just for one thing, i think you could do with a good science book...

[@nunnyahbixniz6709]

godisimaginary.com/

[@jaymesmccrob9356]

Nunn Yah'Bixniz

[@Onlyme2015]

I hate the music . I'm gonna dislike this video.

[@donshafi]

this is a ridiculous video, he doesnt make a convincing argument at all...how can someone watch this and think its any good

[@jaymesmccrob9356]

+donshafi They can't.

[@balabola1881]

+donshafi he does. he says something cannot come out of nothing. So the stuff you see around didn't appear oneday by itself. There was something that brought it and that something is one of the attributes of God, which is the Originator.

[@joshboston2323]

bala bola--you make a huuuuge leap by saying “someone brought it”. How do you know this? We have never observed nothing. Saying something can’t come out of nothing, therefore god is a very strange conclusion.

[@mooseceo7594]

Joshboston believing otherwise is an even more strange conclusion. Honestly what conclusion do you propose or believe in?

[@joshboston2323]

Mustaqim Ahmed-I do not fully know what to believe. I have never observed nothing. I can’t assert any conclusions at this point. We simply do not know enough about the universe (or universes) to draw any strong conclusions.