This Atheists BEST Argument Against MUSLIMS is: "I Don't Know"

Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @hamzasden
© 2022 Hamza's Den All Rights Reserved
Please support us by donating. Jazak'Allahu Khairan to you all
Support the channel by helping fund the editing, translations, and equipment here: gofund.me/1640...
Paypal: www.paypal.com...
Patreon: / hamzasden
Social media
Facebook: / hamzas-den-10066183176...
Twitter: / hamza_den
Instagram: / hamzasden4
TikTok: / hamzasden

[@Bilal_is_joking]

My friend Just passed away, his name was Abdul Rahman, please pray for him..he was such a nice, kind and generous person..he had a beautiful heart, he loved and trusted me so much, it's hard to find friends/people like that these days...he was younger than me and handsome...May Allah forgive him and have mercy on him and grant him Jannah.. In'sha Allah 🤲🏻

[@monkearmy2439]

May ALLAH grant him Jannah.

[@kizu5451]

@@monkearmy2439 Ameen

[@joy8801]

May Allah grant your friend Abdul Rahman Jannah al Ferdous and may Allah have mercy on his soul ameen ya Allah😢🤲🏻

[@skar4455]

انالله و انا الیه راجعون!

[@usmaniqbal836]

Inna lilahi wa inna ilaihi rajihoon

[@AliGgamer]

Ur videos truly put me on deen

[@razer0072073]

@@elisq3807 He buy

[@B.A.Pilgrim]

ginger man pretending he's muslim...

[@AliGgamer]

@@razer0072073 I used to do KZbin from 2015 to 2020 wherein I have videos which are all privated now with over 10million plus views

[@n0limitmarz]

@@AliGgamer gaming?

[@kenh3344]

Who's this deen fella ???

[@cryptomenace9975]

Hamza can you please start to post more I’m about to unsubscribe to Netflix and watch you from now on I’m rewatching ur past debates that’s how good they are lmao pls keep posting ur killing it Mashallah brother ❤️

[@kenh3344]

Hes a false prophet The anti christ.

[@Y_mhfd]

but still brother learn from these videos , not let them be just for the love of watching it

[@cryptomenace9975]

@@Y_mhfd we watch to learn I don’t just have it playing of course

[@jeungcurly]

Indeed, I prefer watch this kind of Vid compare to Netflix and 'friends' 👍

[@History_MadeMe_Catholic]

Try SOCO Films. They don't edit their stuff.

[@nasirimani5058]

Phil actually looks for points to use as deflections.

[@sokhna-sl4fp]

Bro Hamza Epic line: how do you know your mum is your mum? Bro Hashim Epic line: does your God has a God? Alhamdoulilah ala those videos from speakers' Corner that are Life saving & Hafizkum Allah Az-Zawajel ameen ya Rabb'il Alamine ❤ Greetings from Senegal !

[@kapssul]

The brothers jumping on each other's arguments, gives him an escape on each time is cornered..

[@tdsdave]

It's them trying to escape , they ask "explain this complex issue" and when phils does his best to explain it to them they change the subject "explain this other complex issue" , at no point do they take on a burden of explanation or proof.

[@hannahangel1357]

He has bad manners that's why !!!!

[@irfanahmed6411]

Dear brothers Allah bless you you are doing great work on this planet and we love you great

[@momonasri8611]

Every time he gets caught he blames the definition. And arguing from emotion rather than rational and logical arguments. The guy doesn’t understand what the brothers saying.

[@bustinjieber7521]

It could also be that you and the people in the video don't understand him. Phil actually talks with most known scientists and philosophers around about these topics regularly on his channel called skydivephil.

[@kutsc3792]

@@bustinjieber7521 and yet still makes claims and comes out with I don't know everytime he's cornered

[@bustinjieber7521]

@@kutsc3792 Could you give an example? When was he cornered? Phil simple explains what he knows and is humble enough to admit what he doesn't know. How is that being cornered?

[@tdsdave]

@@bustinjieber7521 They always say things like "Hamza's interlocutor was owned" and when you ask them for an example , all you get then is crickets. This is not intellectual debate this is more like football to them , they'll always cheer on their own team even when they don't understand their own teams hot air.

[@bustinjieber7521]

@@tdsdave 99% doesn't even understand what Phil actually says and just spread hate to feel good about themselves and stay cognitive dissonant.

[@thunderthor8235]

Missed opportunity to turn an example on its head: In the Angel praising example, he was asking you guys the wrong question. You should’ve asked him if the praise would exist without the Angel; in this scenario, the seemingly infinite chain of praise would be the equivalent of time as we perceive it, therefore the praise is continuing at present and the Angel needs to exist for the present day to exist (the necessary existence). Great discussion anyhow guys, amazing work as always.

[@Klick17]

Akhi im ngl I'd advise changing your name

[@mukhtarali1974]

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever sends blessings upon me, Allaah will send blessings upon him tenfold.” Narrated by Muslim (384).

[@Austinole]

Stop focusing on "winning" and more on understanding. Only people that thin you "win" are the people that thought that before the debate started.

[@markdoughty8780]

This was a very engaging upload - fairly evenly matched argument-wise for the most part, although I think Yusuf (Ponders) just tipped it to the Dawah Team with his actual and potential infinity argument, which Phil either didn't fully grasp and understand or, chose to ignore the rationale of. Good work; keep 'em coming...

[@mianatwood]

Wasn’t fairly matched whatsoever..:::: the guy keeps saying IDK when he wants to runaway from an argument and then makes calims about knowing those sane things 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️😂😂

[@markorbit4752]

@@mianatwood could you give an example of when he did that?

[@decadentshark9357]

This guy has absolutely shown up these Muslims...they won't let him finish never answer his questions have no understanding of his points..they don't give any value to their responses Absolutely owned

[@jibbobdion5072]

I will say the guy with the "Holiday Vibes" shirt is a lot more respectful than the White-hat, because he doesn't interrupt much, and lets the conversation flow more casually while White-hat is clearly defensive and aggravated with his constant poor behavior.

[@clearskybluewaters]

One consistent indication of biological functionality of a genomic region is if the sequence of that genomic region was maintained by purifying selection (or if mutating away the sequence is deleterious to the organism). Under this definition, 90% of the genome is 'junk'. However, some stress that 'junk' is not 'garbage'

[@tdsdave]

Hamza makes me cringe. Someone being sincere and offering that when you do not have sufficient justifications to determine if a conclusion is the correct one that the reasonable course is to offer you "do not know" is contrasted with Hamza making arguments to incredulity as solid proof for his bare assertions , and Hamza thinks he is showing he "knows things". Hamza's thinking is bankrupt and amounts to something like presuppositionalism , he does not have arguments he just has a certainty he cannot justify , its all just hot air.

[@therflash]

Exactly.

[@TubbyBrewster11]

I have no preconceived notions before watching debates like these. I find Hamza and Subboor to both act like arrogant twats a lot of the time.

[@tdsdave]

@@TubbyBrewster11 Yeah I have to agree. for people who demand sincerity off their interlocutors they neither show this , nor humility.

[@TubbyBrewster11]

@@tdsdave very much correct. Less about an open discussion, and more about trying to ‘own’ or ‘annihilate’ the opponent. A completely tribal immature approach to discussion that does them a total disservice. SkyDivePhil dealt it with much better than I would of during his debate with Subbor on human-ape evolution, throughly exposed Subbor I thought.

[@tdsdave]

@@TubbyBrewster11 SkyDivePhil I worked( animator) with him on his before the big bang documentaries , he really is a genuine guy. When he does a formal debate he actually supplies his interlocutor with all his sources so they can make their best case against him, he's annoyingly smart :)

[@ashrafk8575]

17:30 the leaf doesn’t change the build of the water

[@hselctrical]

Phil jumps from theory to theory as escape route.

[@tdsdave]

What are you talking about he's explaining the physics view on Quantum Mechanics that certain phenomena are truly random and Hamza jumps to information in DNA in the next breath , Hamza is the one dancing through theories Phils is just trying to explain each as they come up . Hamza is not interested in the answers and he has no explanation of his own , he's just trying to bamboozle his interlocutor, and obviously convincing sycophants like you that he's saying something meaningful when he's plainly not.

[@hselctrical]

@@tdsdave yes hamza is staying on the same subject. As far as Phil he needs to decide what Theory he believes in the most and try and stick on that instead of leaping from one to the other depending on on the questions and answers he's received. Don't get me wrong I actually like Phil but I don't think he's very fair

[@tdsdave]

@@hselctrical "yes hamza is staying on the same subject." No, DNA and information within it is not the same subject as if there is fundamental randomness evident in the universe, the two could only be connected by the theme of randomness if Phil were advocating that DNA is a solely a product of randomness , but he is not , no one says that except dishonest ignorant creationists when trying to strawman their opponents arguments. "As far as Phil he needs to decide what Theory he believes in the most and try and stick on that instead of leaping from one to the other depending on on the questions and answers he's received." To me this just suggests to me you no nothing of the topics being discussed or imagine they are so trivial an answer can be offered in a single soundbite, but this is only the case for the theist , who lazily offer "Allah did it" . The topics are vast , within physics or biology there are sub-fields of particular study within sub-fields , each requiring significant study to even offer that you know something about them , and vastly more to claim expertise. It's Hamza's ignorance on display here not Phil's , Hamza asks about information in the genome and cannot formally define what information he is even talking about , why , because he knows nothing about Information Theory which is a distinct topic in itself. So what is Hamza's reaction , to throw up his arms and pretend Phil is not answering his questions, but the reality is Hamza is incapable of understanding the answer to his own questions, because all he actually "knows" is that lazy theist answer "Allah did it", he has no further insight . He's offering a list of questions which he is not informed enough to actually engage in , questions he has learned from other apologists that may trip up someone who is poorly informed on a topic , which is all he looking for in reality . Phil is not such a person on these topics. As for Phil sticking to "what Theory he believes in the most" this is just naive . For example in astronomy/cosmology we understand how stars form , that we understand this well does not entail we understand every process in every star in the universe. These are fields of study still because questions remain unanswered, our knowledge is not complete. So Phil can offer our account of star formation is accurate because his reasons to affirm that are evidentially well supported, whilst he can simultaneously recognize that our understanding of Blackholes or the origin of the universe is incomplete or simply unknown. We have ideas about these latter phenomena but cannot assert these ideas are the "truth" because we do not have the evidence to support them , they are only possible explanations not definitive ones. This is how you know Hamza is really insincere in these profoundly deep questions he see's someone offering that they , indeed we, do not know , is a failing when it's just honesty. Meanwhile a theist like Hamza will assert that he knows these answers with certitude, that it's impossible he is wrong , not because he has an argument or evidence , but simply because his books in ink on it's pages demands it. "Don't get me wrong I actually like Phil but I don't think he's very fair" How can it be "fair" for a guy who does not know a topic to compete with someone who knows more about it . Is it "unfair" that you'd know less about your religion than someone who has dedicated significant time to actually reading it's texts , would you be sincere if you told that person that you cannot be wrong about your religion, or for you to ridicule that person when you asked them a question about some complicated point and they answered they do not know the definitive answer , for you to dismiss their reasons for answering thus as weakness. You'd not treat a Sheikh that, why would it be "fair" to treat someone talking about science and philosophy like that. Phil is a really nice guy to talk to , if you get chance do . Sorry this got so long for such a short post by you , and also if it comes across as vitriolic , I just wish Muslims such as yourself would actually look into these topics and see for yourself what is obvious to the rest of us , the game Hamza plays are not sincere, they are all showboating to mislead you, just debate smoke and mirrors. All the best.

[@hselctrical]

@@tdsdave you seem confident. I would like to see you in a debate with one of these guys 🤔

[@tdsdave]

@@hselctrical For the reasons I've explained , that I regard Hamza et al as insincere , why would I wish to debate them . Phils' a really nice , and bright guy every time he talks to Hamza , we get this mess. I've known personally several really bright people who went onto Hamza's den , and he overtalks, mutes, or bans them or there is a dogpile ( a little like this video where 5 or so Dawah guys want their little piece of nonsense ) . Hamza only deals "fairly" with people he can bamboozle or control , as soon as he's uncomfortable we get tantrum time . I've been to the corner years ago , and talked to a few Muslims there , but I'd never talk to Hamza, there are much more decent folk you can have reasonable conversations with . Some of the Muslims in this I could talk to , but not if they are on the script , they do not listen if they are like the guy in the holiday vibes shirt .

[@kaleemopinion181]

bro Hamza your speaker's corner videos clicking like fire

[@maliksanjaya1295]

"I don't now" and "Mystery" classic 🤣🤣

[@rawkeeper7601]

So what exactly is wrong with saying you don't know when you actually don't know?

[@mukhtarmutawakil5557]

@@rawkeeper7601 cos the I don’t know over here is a cop out. Can something come from nothing, yes it can, you corner them then they’ll be like oh we don’t know. With atheist infinite regression is possible, order can come from chaos and then they’ll fold their hands and be like oh we don’t know lol 😂

[@rawkeeper7601]

@@mukhtarmutawakil5557 How is saying "i don't know" to something that can't be known due to the lack of equiptment a cop out? And btw it's not just according to atheists but to science. Muslims like you or the ones in this video simply don't understand the thing being said about science so it's actually not surprising you think this.

[@suddenlyevolution8900]

@@rawkeeper7601 it is a copout . "i hope scientist find out about it". other people move away to find another tool or explore another theory.

[@rawkeeper7601]

@@suddenlyevolution8900 Sorry I don't understand what you mean but I disagree that it's a copout. admitting you don't know is humble rather than thinking you can't be wrong about a sibjective belief.

[@homtanks7259]

JazakAllahu khairan

[@MRshraaf]

It is quite clear that Phil doesn't really know what he is talking about while accusing others of doing the same.

[@MuhammadHassan200]

He is arguing for the sake of the argument.

[@dadush4]

A basic sophist

[@tdsdave]

If you offer what is current physics and hamza et al say "Nuh Uh!", then they do not understand. Phil is well read , they are not , they are just on a script .

[@MuhammadHassan200]

@@tdsdave phil is using science to make certain claims while boys use philosophy.

[@dadush4]

@@tdsdave phil looks well read because he recited irrelevant things he read and tries to deflect the actual discussion. Hamza is asking him to explain it and Phil proves he s incapable by insisting on ridicule rather than explanation plus relevance. When asked what type of information dna is, he gave the wrong definition. Phil is a sophist and dishonest. You fell in his trap.

[@tomdickson3225]

Hamzas only argument is interrupting people

[@abde4645]

"Only"are you genuinely stupid?

[@mohameda5947]

Hamza made his points this other brother however, albeit i can follow what he’s saying, he does face a language barrier to some extent or at least does not possess a strong command of the language, which makes it harder for him to efficiently clarify let alone delivering his points.

[@arakibhosen434]

ALHAMDULILLAH ❤️ keep going brothers with right intentions ❤️ ALLAH bless you all ❤️ JAJAKALLA KHIRAN ❤️🙂❤️

[@Ibrahimjordz_reviews_vibez]

Alhamdulillah for quran Alhamdulillah for islam without sounding horrible this asteist is sky diving without a parachute standard

[@user-lo9si5dx8t]

The type of information Hamza should have insisted on is "The instructional information" that can ONLY come from an intelligent mind.

[@togawearer2799]

Why, because you say so?

[@user-lo9si5dx8t]

@@togawearer2799 No, why don't you tell us where else could information come from? I am all ears.

[@kenh3344]

Intellect and logic dont cut the mustard with god. He wants faith. Like abraham the father of faith. Without faith its impossible to please God. There for we need to repent of our sins and believe in his son. Gods word says believe on the lord jesus christ and you shall be saved ....

[@togawearer2799]

From our parents - our ancestors, through evolution. So, you are wrong.

[@togawearer2799]

@@kenh3344 Faith - the exact opposite of intelligence, reason and honesty.

[@uskudarbesiktas9018]

Too sad that there were nobody to say to him that "infinite devided by a finite number" is NOT "undefined" mathematically. "infinity minus infinite" IS "undefined". But the brother asked the former.

[@therflash]

Any equation involving infinity is undefined, you can't do arithmetics with infinities as if they were numbers.

[@breakbeat9229]

You can't argue with someone who thinks he can't be wrong in his subjective belief since he is blinded by his arrogance.

[@thinboxdictator6720]

That's what religion does to people.

[@macmac1022]

Just like hamza does at 2 minutes in the video, ya I agree he is blinded by his own arrogance.

[@yellowbeez93]

"I *wholeheartedly* believe Islam is the *absolute truth* that has no room for flaws/errors." "I also somewhat accept that my belief *can* be wrong/flawed." Do you not see how stupid that sounds? If you believe something to be completely true, you're not going to think that its possible for there to be any room/space for any misunderstanding whatsoever. It would only makes sense to say that, if you don't quite believe something to be 100% which means room for possibility that it is not 100%.

[@breakbeat9229]

​@@yellowbeez93 It sounds stupid if someone says "I can't be wrong about my subjective belief" since it is called a belief because it can be wrong.

[@yellowbeez93]

@@breakbeat9229 "I believe either one of these two statements can only be true; 'The universe is created by someone' and 'The universe is not created by anyone'." Can this belief be wrong?

[@yslbdslime4127]

Bro this atheist dude can not stop interrupting like bro give my guy hamza a chance to finish his sentence lol

[@farmu4535]

thts y u shouldn't have 3 dawah guys with 1 guy, he keeps skipping questions, as for me worst debate i have watched

[@Timetraveller1000]

Again Abu Hamza the all seeing 👁 has a excellent point he is explaining the infinite beard and evidence of beard trimming .

[@abumansaray7]

Phil may have knowledge of science, but he isn't very intelligent. This is hard to watch. The guy is so simplistic in his understanding of basic arguments. Yes, Phil, buildings don't reproduce themselves. We know that. However, we use a blueprint to build things bc it contains instructions, I.E., information. Likewise, DNA has a blueprint it uses to replicate itself and make new DNA. Therefore, why do you dismiss that a blueprint of a building randomly generated itself bc of the functionality and complexity but accept that the information of a DNA was randomly generated?

[@aafuuu]

Didn't you hear his answer? Because it's biology 🤣

[@togawearer2799]

Because reproduction brings mutation, the cornerstone of evolution. The reproduction of DNA is not perfect. Random mutations occur every time a copy 'reproduce' is made. Beneficial mutations thrive and are therefore more likely to survive.

[@aspire7860]

The way he constantly interrupts, just like when christians preach the bible lol

[@aspire7860]

What informations is ? Lmao

[@rezacny]

Phil doesn't understand the difference between a potential infinite and an actual infinite

[@makohussien4034]

Jasaaka Allah brother

[@divinity176]

It is better to acknowledge that which you don't know than to create magical answers and pretend it is settled. Of all the unknown things once attributed to god(s) that subsequently became known, it never turned out to be god - not a single time. Historically, God is a terrible default answer for the unknown.

[@bryn3652]

Why won't hamza let him speak? He's trying to debate with four others.

[@michaelevans4110]

Allahumma Salli Ala Muhammadin Wa Ala Ali Muhammadin Kama Sallaita 'Ala Ibrahima Wa'Ala Ali Ibrahima Innaka Hamidum Majid -O Allah, let Your blessings come upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You blessed Ibrahim and his family -truly You are the Praiseworthy and Glorious Alliumma Barik Ala Muhammadin Wa'Ala Ali Muhammadin Kama Bäraketa Ala Ibrahima Wa Ala Ali Ibrahima Innaka Hamidum Majid -O Allah, bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad -as You blessed Ibrahim and his family -truly You are the Praiseworthy and Glorious Ameen ya Rabb Jazak Allahu Khayran Alhamdulillahi rabbi al'alameen

[@djaxx587]

It's kind of sad to see how Hamza is trying to create a "got ya" moment while looking incredibly ignorant on these topics. Also try's to make Phil look stupid for not knowing something that doesn't have much evidence, which is the most humble position to take, while Hamza thinks he can't be wrong about something that could be untrue which is the opposite of humbleness.

[@HamzasDen]

Wow you have poor comprehension skills 🙄

[@tsananeomeno7963]

@@HamzasDen Wow you have great deflection skills 🙄

[@PoeticAmmunition.]

Phil didn't need help looking stupid...

[@djaxx587]

@@HamzasDen What am I not comprehending?

[@HamzasDen]

When did I claim I can't be wrong about anything 🤔

[@jackfischer9321]

Quantum phenomena are random. The quantum realm of atoms have randomness at its core as well as particles and could therefore be argued that randomness is provebable?

[@lahleholivia7398]

It strange Allah created 4500 other gods and religions which undermine his authority 🙁

[@zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651]

Dear Olivia, Efdawah is a good channel for you to join it's Livestreams. Insya Allah.

[@lahleholivia7398]

@@bander-Coolb If he creator of everything then he created 4500 other gods and religions.

[@lahleholivia7398]

@Remy Strange Allah demand worshiping but then give human free will to create god and Godess for worship and forget Allah. That most illogical for perfect being.

[@lahleholivia7398]

@@bander-Coolb And the people who worshiping the other god's before Islam never heard of Allah so did they pass or fail this test,. Will they go to hell for not believing in something they never knew existed? The test reason is completely illogical. This is not the actions of a perfect being when humans can point to number of flaws in it. Either he in total control or has no control at all, either one produces far too many mistakes for perfect being who orders to be worshipped. These are errors humans don't make.

[@myuzairy7324]

@@lahleholivia7398 _And the people who worshiping the other god's before Islam never heard of Allah so did they pass or fail this test,. Will they go to hell for not believing in something they never knew existed?_ Clearly you have no understanding of Islam since that's not what Islam teaches. Have you actually studied Islam before asking that question?

[@ahmedadawy1238]

Ma sha Allah tabark Allah

[@RustyWalker]

"I don't know" is an answer, not an argument. It's a valid response to a question if you, in fact, do not know the answer. Funny how that works.

[@TheGolfCommunity1]

He’s being asked what he believes not what he knows

[@RustyWalker]

@@TheGolfCommunity1 Then why is the title of the video, "This Atheists best argument against Muslims is: "I don't know?""

[@TheGolfCommunity1]

@@RustyWalker simply doesn’t understand the question

[@RustyWalker]

@@TheGolfCommunity1 Which one? It's an hour long.

[@djambidextre]

41:24 they killed me here 🤣

[@JoXeRTV]

Muslim: What is 1+1=? Atheist: "I Don't Know"

[@juliankelley6253]

The conversation is okay, but there was too much steam rolling in the beginning. For us listening we miss out on what the speakers are saying at that moment. May Allah bless you brothers and may Allah guide the atheist guy.

[@mickqQ]

Sometimes “ I don’t know” Is the correct answer , to many people don’t want to admit they don’t know. Which leads to the invention of answers like a god did it, or the gods did it. There are no real gods There are only people that believe gods are real. The gods are concepts people of the ancient world used to try to make sense of the universe and their place in it. These beliefs have been passed down through the generations in the form of dogmatic religions, via a mixture of cultural adherence, special privilege, indoctrination and fear. People become convinced that their gods are part of reality…and not just concepts they are using to try to make sense of reality. 😊

[@Sadiqul]

@Mick Q The problem is not who is right, the problem is the principal. Here's an analogy that even a child can understand. A teacher asked two student the same question. One of them answered and the other claimed to not knowing the answer. Now the teacher would decide whether the answer was correct or not. Meanwhile the other student who claimed to not knowing said, "teacher, that answer is wrong" That student said "How do you know it's right or not. You said you don't know the answer, now suddenly you know which one is not right!" In speakers corner, they are not talking about the teacher or the answer, they are the 2 students. They're just asking one another what they know about the answer and how they know it.

[@mickqQ]

You don’t have to know the right answer , to know the wrong answer. If me and you spent all day yesterday playing guitars in the park .. And The police approached and accused me of robbing a bank yesterday You might not know the right answer of who robbed the bank , but you definitely know that I did it, is the wrong answer. Isn’t it funny No matter what theist you talk to , their god is always the right answer. Do you know what’s even funnier, A reliable predictor of what god you will think is real … is where you are born. One claims to know ( theists claim it was some god or gods) One does not … Not only do they acknowledge they don’t know, they don’t believe you know either . I find theism has quite a lot of faux humility disguising arrogance.

[@Sadiqul]

@@mickqQ That's the thing theism atheism just the terms they don't agree with other, Christians and Muslims arguing about who's Jesus for ever, and there's sub sects. It's not black and white. Modern atheism is a revolt against oppression of religion in Europe. Not all religion believes in god or same things. A Hindu would say there's many gods, A Jew would say one but He only favor us, a Christian would say there's three in one etc. Thousands of religion thousands of ideas. An atheist is not denying most of the concept of creator. Scientific process prove the existence but don't explain which concept of god is absolute. Keep looking we just barely touched the surface u will find greater things in the universe and beyond

[@mickqQ]

I am an atheist. I don’t believe that there are any gods at all There are only people that believe gods are real, I would go further and say There isn’t any gods. Gods are conceptual

[@Sadiqul]

@@mickqQ Ofc u don't. Because u don't believe in the scientific process

[@mohameda5947]

Does the athiest think that The Creator’s existence is dependant on religion? The Creator is not dependant. So you could recognize The Creator without following a particular faith. Its not some abstract idea in your imagination that doesn’t exist in reality when you stop thinking of it.

[@reeceh2320]

Hamza only brings blind faith and personal belief to the arguments, its hard to watch and listen to him think he's winning an argument when it's going in circles, he sounds like a child asking why over and over because he doesn't understand someone's point

[@N0411REGIS]

Ngl when the atheist guy telling what information is, idk what kind of the definition of information he was talking about, it was confusing He said that information is physical, weight are not physical but it still information, the same with pressure, speed, time. It all metaphysic in a sense, but what make them physical because how science make something to observe the metaphysic, a standard measurement of those thing, hence they became physical and we know it exist, but even if we don't have that measurement we still know at some point it exist in metaphysic form wich hardly observeable unless it interact with physical object and create some phenomenon with the said physical object that we could observe. So information doesn't have to be physical to be called information, maybe with physically observable stuff information could increase, but it doesn't mean if there is nothing to observe there is no information. This is the kind of trouble for some people with "seeing is believing" because sometimes thing are not mean to be percieve with just seeing, it could be heard, touch, smell, or taste, or we thinking of something that is not there also called information

[@togawearer2799]

Why don't you go and find out? Look up "Information Theory"

[@jambear7862]

Half of infinite is infinite, half of nothing is nothing..

[@connordasilva4934]

Phill sounded more like a Muslim in the last 15/20 minutes of this debate… interesting video definitely could see hamza felt that humility jab at the end sometimes that’s all we need a little humility but from the beginning I guess

[@Smalldatalooser]

That guy deserves a Dawkins award

[@ozeripek507]

Nature, if it has an external reality, can at the very most be work of art; it cannot be the Artist. It is an embroidery, and cannot be the Embroiderer. It is a set of decrees; it cannot be the Issuer of the decrees. It is a body of the laws of creation, and cannot be the Lawgiver. It is but a created screen to the dignity of God, and cannot be the Creator. It is passive and created, and cannot be a Creative Maker. It is a law, not a power, and cannot possess power. It is the recipient, and cannot be the source. Risale-i Nur/Said Nursi

[@ergislekaj3766]

Make nonstop of these vids

[@ALzzanam]

جزاكم الله خيرا

[@whome4851]

It's ridiculous to reject God and, believing God is both logical and easier

[@marwahassan498]

بارك الله لك حمزه ربنا يصبرك اللهم امين🤲🏻

[@haithem8906]

did you know that computers can't calculate randomness we can't get true randomness what it does, is mashing data(mouse movements,gps location, keyboard's last keystroke, harddrive's noise, cpu temp, used ram...etc) multiplying the data together and it will be close enough to randomness, since we are ignorant about that huge amount of data

[@tdsdave]

"did you know that computers can't calculate randomness" Most random number generators we use in conventional computing are pseudo-random , your subsequent description is pretty much correct for some varieties of algorithm. "we can't get true randomness" Well Quantum Mechanics has shown us phenomena that appear truly random , e.g "Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms. According to quantum theory, it is *impossible* to predict when a particular atom will decay, regardless of how long the atom has existed."

[@haithem8906]

@@tdsdave that's just because quantum mechanics is relatively new, and there could come a paper that debunk it all, i could say for example planets move randomly in space, if i have no knowledge about physics. did you know that the way we observe the state of nano matter could effect its state, we don't yet have a way to observe them without effecting them. and we be like.. look if i observe it, it takes one form.

[@tdsdave]

​ @haithem "that's just because quantum mechanics is relatively new" Its' actually about the same age as relativity . ~100 years. "and there could come a paper that debunk it all" The understanding of QM we have is behind the device you are typing on , a new paper will not show that this understanding we have is not applicable to the problems we solved with it to make the device. What might change , as it did for Newtonian gravity vs Relativity is that we we find a new understanding , that simply changes the way we look at it. We still use Newtonian mechanics to put satellites in orbit , it still works where it worked before relativity . Where relativity's view matters is when you have high mass or velocities. NM was not a complete theory because it failed predicting the orbit of Mercury, whereas Relativity did predict it. The word theory in science really means , what is the overarching explanation that explains the facts about a phenomena. In NM theory gravity was explained as force , in Relativity gravity is explained as space time curvature , the explanation of gravity changed, our view of it changed. Now Phil actually mentioned in the video an idea relating to QM called Superdeterminism, this idea is a different view , which would remove the apparent randomness from QM. Is it true , no idea , it would seem the mechanism it postulates would remain out of reach of our experiments so we may not or could not verify it's true.. So its not like Phil or me is saying that some future explanation cannot explain away the randomness from QM which is evident today , but today that it is random is the explanation we have , and we take it into account that it is in building devices like the one you are typing on. What you seem to want to do is pretend like you are certain it is not random even though the evidence we do have shows it is, so whats your justification for that , how can you be certain ? You could be humble like us and say you do not know if this randomness is fundamentally the way the universe behaves or not, but to assert it is not , is a burden of proof I doubt you can meet. "did you know that the way we observe the state of nano matter could effect its state, we don't yet have a way to observe them without effecting them. and we be like.. look if i observe it, it takes one form." I know what QM says today , at least to some degree . This statement of yours is pretty ambiguous , what actually are you talking about. There is nothing profound or relevant in a plain reading of it ? I'd guess you'd be talking about indeterminism , which itself says for example in such experiments the more we know about one attribute of particle then the less we know about another , this is all stochastic , the whole math describing physics in QM is probabilistic. But I'll wait for you to clarify.

[@haithem8906]

@@tdsdave we cannot deny the observer effect, every time we observe a molecule, our observation methods aren't pure and can lead to side effects. anyway, i cannot disprove quantum mechanics, but i can say this, as much as we think we had the purest matter, we don't. as much as we think that our current knowledge is top of the line and it can prove everything, we do not. time is still moving which means we are going to be part of history, in the chain of philosophies that came up with the absolute solution. people back in the day used to think throwing an object, it falls in a random location every time, because of their lack of knowledge. we could either advance more in quantum mechanics and find a way to predict states, or it gets disproven all together and another theory will rise that contain it, and another thing quantum physics is incomplete.

[@tdsdave]

@@haithem8906 "we cannot deny the observer effect" This is more properly called the measurement problem . As QM stands now we do not have an explanation for this , though some interpretations( the explanations) do deal with it , at this time there are about six or so common interpretations(explanations) for QM , but we do not know which if any are the correct understanding. "as much as we think we had the purest matter, we don't. as much as we think that our current knowledge is top of the line and it can prove everything, we do not." That just sounds like someone saying they do not know , well good for you , because no one at this time knows , science never says it has absolute truth , it talks of having the best explanation at this time given the evidence at this time, as evidence in a field changes so may a view change in that field. What matters here and now is what works , what allows us to manipulate the world around us in predictable ways , and QM, for all its weirdness, does allow us to do that. So which is it , which of of these positions do you subscribe to TODAY , without idly speculating about the future? 1) You accept that certain events we see in physics are apparently random, but you neither affirm or deny that this randomness is fact the fundamental nature of reality, that you do not know if randomness is a fundamental quality of reality. . 2) You assert that the fundamental nature of reality has no randomness in it, that fundamental reality is completely deterministic, that you know this. So 1) or 2) without speculation about what may or may not be true in the future? If you offer 2) I want the justifications why you think that. "and another thing quantum physics is incomplete." Well yeah , there are deep questions about QM that we have not found answers for, in particular how we can integrate it with Relativity, which we've been trying to do for over 1/2 a century without any real progress. At this time most physicists think both these theories are not the final answers, which is why you'll hear talk of Grand Unified Theories, which are still speculated on without success. But whatever such a theory may be , at this time to make assertions about what will be true in it requires justifications, or you can be honest and say you do not know.

[@dr.briaro]

the aetheists water is not finishing after all those sips :D🤷🏽‍♂

[@perfect.stealth]

One simply cannot dislike Sebastian

[@mariahoofs1152]

Same as muslim, if they cant answer, they say allah knows best😁😁😁

[@umarrahman1914]

The difference is we understand that God as Allah is unlimited and our ability to understand God is limited. We can only understand up to a certain point, after that, it's beyond the ability to understand. An example of this is animals, they don't have the ability to question the origins of the universe, all they can understand is the here and now. Where do I get food today? How do I survive? In our case, understanding a creator that works outside of the way the laws that define the universe would not make sense. But that's what makes God be God. If God suddenly makes a river split in 2, science won't explain such a thing, if it were to be seen it would be recorded yes, but that doesn't mean it would be understood. So at that point the answer would be to a human I don't know. But we could tribute it to God since we don't know how it could be possible materialistically, but it could be possible with something God does that we have no knowledge in currently, or maybe ever. Especially when we consider the attributes of God being all knowing, all wise, just and so on.

[@mariahoofs1152]

@@umarrahman1914 allah is not actually the name of God, it a generic term, but mohammad took it as his name after he unified all the gods in kaaba under 1 ultimate gid, allah. Remember tawheed? It doesnt mean 1 god, it means unification. Allah is a unified god of kaaba.

[@umarrahman1914]

@mariahoofs1152 Yh Christians say alaha but anyway tawhid means the oneness of God. Not giving God any partners, sons or whatever. Allah united everyone in the Islamic belief and it is up to them whether or not they follow. That is their free will that God has given them.

[@mariahoofs1152]

@@umarrahman1914 nope, tawheed means unification. Do a research, you are being deceive. In bible, it is YHWH, allah is a coomon term for the god, but mohammad took it as a name. It is like al lat, al uza. Al lah. Have you ever wonder why mohammad's father was named abdullah? Servant of god. But he is a pagan, an idol worshipper. He is worshipping who?

[@abumansaray7]

Information theory has to do with computer science. It's about the storage, processing, and transmission of data. His camera example spoke about the cameras ability to compress and store the data of what it took a picture of. Hamza did not ask about how a camera works. In other words, does the puddle of water contain information? Once strawman, Phil.

[@togawearer2799]

Yes, the puddle of water contains information. Information theory is not restricted to just computers. It straddles all sorts of disciplines.

[@Hameed639]

Alhamdulillah

[@abdulmajeed1126]

Assalamu Alaikum Rahmatullahi Barakatuh Allah Mubarak

[@moohoho123]

Hate the way he’s downing that gunk down his throat - so nervously

[@_eLf45]

I've been saying this for years, at the end of the day the best argument that an atheist have is "i don't know". That's it. And they'll keep using their subjective emotional opinion as if it's a valid point.

[@togawearer2799]

"I don't know" isn't an argument, so for years you've been sounding like a fool.

[@jihadist4672]

You guys must mention that these things that are contingent must require an explanation if you have a set of contingent thing infinite or finite it still needs an explanation as to why it exists

[@jihadist4672]

May Allah سبحانه وتعالى reward you brothers

[@togawearer2799]

Stop making random claims unless you're willing to prove them.

[@jihadist4672]

@@togawearer2799 don’t comment if you have nothing valuable to bring forth.

[@togawearer2799]

@@jihadist4672 The same could be said of you.

[@jihadist4672]

@@togawearer2799 not my fault you’re too stupid to understand the comment

[@hali8580]

58:00 just think of it as a set of batteries. all the batteries are dependent. will they run of of power without an independent power feeding them externally

[@mohameda5947]

16:35 the guy is talking about a category name, of some dude its named after who supposedly categorized certain forms of info into a box, so he says they don’t know what information is while they’re discussing the contents of that box if you will, on the other hand the atheist is more concerned with what to call that box or what waiting to hear the name. But most lay people have even a basic understanding of information.

[@togawearer2799]

Most lay people don't have a basic understanding of information theory though, that's his point, which seems to have flown completely over your head.

[@mohameda5947]

@@togawearer2799 you seem to have missed my point

[@togawearer2799]

@@mohameda5947 No, I haven't, you've missed Phil's point because you don't understand anything about information theory, which is his point. At least go and read up about information theory and then you will understand the importance of what Phil was saying. A lay person's understanding of information is completely inadequate. You need to understand what 'information theory' is and it's applications to understand what Phil was trying to explain.

[@mohameda5947]

@@togawearer2799 what do you think I missed ?

[@mohameda5947]

Is the atheist suggesting that if there is suffering then there is no good ?

[@steam1804]

The reason an infinite chain of causes cant exist in the real world is because we observe an actual cause. If that cause was preceded by an infinite amount of causes, then it would result in an infinite amount of causes having to end in order for this cause to be possible. An infinite amount of anything ending is a contradiction in definition because infinity by definition cannot end. Brothers, you need to get this info next time.

[@tdsdave]

Yusef on the angels singing praises is just insisting that if he chooses a finite point there will be a finite number of praises having been sung, well yeah obviously, but the question is how many praises will be sung. He's just ignoring that an infinity is entailed in the question , and so it follows an infinite number of praises will be sung. Earlier the Holiday vibes guy offered if he asked for water from a infinite chain of people then it is impossible he would get water, but that's simply again ignoring the infinite in his own question, the "get me water request " would propagate toward infinity , an endless series , the request will never reach an end , so the actual answer is undefined , there is no reason at any point to think no water will come back because we still have not reached a conclusion( an end) , we'd always still be asking for the water. Infinities are not intuitive , but insisting there must be an end because the notion there is not one is uncomfortable is not in any sense a defeater for these arguments. It's actually funny watching this whole gang stumble over this .

[@Balfour-doc]

You should have asked him the mount Everest question.

[@XiagraBalls]

What's that?

[@jim4004]

The atheist was right about convergent infinite series. Infinite steps and infinite time in a convergent series will have a finite result.

[@markorbit4752]

Brave man. He countered every single muslim point with grace and humility. As you can see, islam is not as solid as muslims want to claim. NOT ONCE in this discussion did muslims even try....EVEN TRY to bring in allah of the quran....because we all know that god is laughable. Muslims can argue about the existence of a god. As an agnostic atheist, I say, yeah okay, there could be a god. BUT LET´S TALK ABOUT YOUR GOD ALLAH. Disproving a god who communicates by sending a messanger to SQUEEZE people is a fun task

[@HamzasDen]

Hmmmm you sure you watched the video 🤔

[@markorbit4752]

@@HamzasDen I did watch the video. I skipped a few minutes where many people were shouting at the same time making hearing difficult, but otherwise I watched the whole thing

[@HamzasDen]

OK so now I'm confused as he said i don't know quite a lot, what do you believe he refuted 🤔

[@markorbit4752]

@@HamzasDen Yes, he did say he could be wrong about god right at the beginning, where you claimed 100% confidence that you couldn't be wrong. And he kept his answers honest throughout the exchange, despite you trying to force him onto a corner to make claim things he when he didn't have enough knowledge to do so. For example, on the topic of fine-tuning as evidence for god, he successfully blocked you from pulling through with your assumptions about god being the creator of information in the first cell without making any baseless claims as to the origin of that information himself. And again, it all boiled down to intellectual honesty.

[@HamzasDen]

He is a very dishonest man, who will contradict himself to save face, for example in one argument he will respond with relativity and the next with Quantam mechanics, these 2 cannot both be true

[@Ilovewatchingsupernaturalparan]

That water bottle has infinite water...the water is endless.

[@AbdulKader-pv7pv]

The debate just going from one point to another without establishing the existing debating point very unpleasant to enjoy or learn from the debate

[@undaulun]

king of "i don't know"

[@T_J_]

Title is disingenuous. "I don't know" isn't an argument! 😆 It's simply an honest answer. Nobody actually knows the answers to the questions you guys are pretending to know. You may _believe_ it ... and feel that you have a justified true belief but that is NOT knowledge. Try being honest. Try being humble.

[@uthman2281]

What is knowledge ?

[@T_J_]

@@uthman2281 Knowledge is an understanding of facts.

[@uthman2281]

@@T_J_ What is a fact?

[@T_J_]

@@uthman2281 What, am I a dictionary? Is this an English lesson or something? You're asking me to define some pretty basic words here. If you've got something to say, just bring it.

[@markh1011]

@@uthman2281 I see you playing these silly games in many videos. Learn to use a dictionary and stop wasting people's time.

[@markorbit4752]

The beginning is very clear about who´s being intellectually dishonest in this discussion. Hamza asks the man if there´s a chance he could be wrong about god not existing and he says YES he could be. He asks Hamza if there´s a chance he could be wrong about god existing and Hamza claims categorical NO. i know he has to say this because he will otherwise be GUTTED by muslims, but it still shows why it is difficult to have intellectually honest discussions with muslims. There are consequences for a muslim who appears to agree with an argument against anything islamic...no matter how minute.

[@XiagraBalls]

He also changed his mind on the question as to whether God is good or not in about 30 seconds!

[@AtaraxiA0001]

The Muslim claim to know everything by assumption and assertion, its god argument. I don't know is a valid argument, as a human being it's a rational reason/response to uncertain matters, it's better than assuming that a complex matter is automatically made by the creator. This two Muslim doesnt even let the atheist finish his statement.

[@MnyamwezMnyamwez-vx1wb]

The "statement": I am 100% certain I don't and will not ever know the answer, but you are wrong. The problem with athiest is that you force yourselves to argue in support of fantasies you call theories that you don't have the guts to believe in or agree with, but you do that simply because you hate that Muslims believe in Allah as the ultimate creator. You are 100% certain you will not ever know the answer yet you are hell bound on creating fantasies you call theories to prove Muslims wrong, we have seen the likes of you do that for thousands of years.

[@jinn_1891]

"I don't know" is better than "I know......even if I have no evidence"

[@HamzasDen]

Define evidence 🤔

[@jinn_1891]

@@HamzasDen an available body of facts/information indicating whether a belief/proposition is true or valid. A broad collection of evidences will converge towards what is or isn't true e.g. humans and apes are primates. If the evidence is weak, we can infere at best.... ... "I flew to heaven on a winged horse like creature" only has one mans word as "evidence", I wouldn't be so confident to call it fact.....I would instead relegate it to faith.

[@HamzasDen]

Are you claiming God doesn't exist 🤔

[@selaluoposisisiapapunpresi7982]

infinity require no result, now is the result of the past therefore the past is finite

[@michaelevans4110]

Calling them dependant, implies an independent exists.

[@MohamedAli-hl8kz]

Phil is very disingenuous, he interrupts every point

[@agusiman2340]

God (Allah swt) grants people's prayers (wants), both for the life of this world and life after death (hereafter). The problem is which life do you want (only the world, the hereafter or both). So if you want to get the happiness of living in both realms, then follow God's instructions, fulfill God's wishes from us. Of course not the desire of human lust. But based on the instructions of the Quran & the Sunnah of the Prophet. So for an atheist, it would be wiser if he wanted to learn (the only) true religion, namely Islam in addition to other knowledge revealed by Allah swt.

[@HH_1988]

There's really no point speaking to people like this. He's not open minded enough to concede he could be wrong. He's not willing to learn about Islam. This was a pointless endeavour.

[@grvjensen]

Just because of a book Muslims believe they know everything... 🤣🤣 And thst same book says a 52 year old man married a 6 year old girl and climbed to heaven

[@mohammednaseer1952]

.Al Hamdollah

[@5castles893]

Completely going off topic and turning the argument around to his favor to get the answer that he wants as opposed to being quiet listening and answering the questions I don't know should be his middle name

[@akbeh]

The end was just sour even at the end after the hand shakes, cuz each side want to have the last word. I just can't understand how there is disagreement on just simple concepts. It would be wanted to go into Phil mind to know why he thinks everything contrary. And I wonder how ll he be judged, cuz he claims to not have been convinced by all the explanations and dawah we gave him. But Allah knows best.

[@reyhugo4879]

infinite is infinite, there is no "type" of infinite , that guy is loooooong goooooooone

[@Dr-EV]

Nothing wrong with "I don't know”. Just because someone has given you an explanation that's not proven, it doesn't mean you definitely know, it's just you think you have the answer.

[@muhammadalbarami3268]

you kinda missed the point, its the fact the the atheist is saying a bunch of stuff then says he does not know. therefore how can you explain things you dont know about. we have more justifications that are more logical, so we can say we do know.

[@Dr-EV]

@@muhammadalbarami3268 I agree with some of your comment. But as a non religious person, this person isn't doing anything wrong by stating a fact without understanding why it is a fact. Offering an explanation to something that's backed by logic isn't a pathway to truth. Truth/fact cannot be subjective or based on belief, only evidence. While the easiest explanation is that God created the universe because....... It doesn't mean it is correct. The answer may never EVER be known for a fact, only asserted. Just like proving God exists, it is asserted repeatedly that he does, but there is no proof. If god cannot be proven to exist, you cannot relate universe creation to him.

[@muhammadalbarami3268]

@@Dr-EV there are many proofs that God exists, just pick up the Quran and read. Watch some lectures and you will come to realize God exists.

[@Dr-EV]

@@muhammadalbarami3268 OK. Give me something from the Qur'an to prove that Allah is the god of Christianity or Judaism. Then give me proof that universe pooping pixies didn't poop the universe out and the rest occured naturally.

[@muhammadalbarami3268]

@@Dr-EV like it was said in the video there can't be an infinite loop of creation. For example if I wanted to give you a burger but I first had to get permission from some one and this went on as infinite you would never get your burger. So logically we can deduct that there is a being at the very beginning, this being is all powerful because it can create and it has will because it can create lastly its all knowing because it creates laws and principles that the creations follow. Therefore we can say we have logically explained that God exists.

[@michaelevans4110]

Skydive exposed by the ponders.

[@haliduhudu5905]

Hamza is glowing

[@rmurphy81]

His example of taking a picture of a puddle and then a bit of dirt in it increasing the information, must be with regards to the information in the picture. Which is talking about information in the picture on the phone, which needs an intelligent agent to create the phone. So it was nonsense talk. Trying to disguise something that needs an intelligent agent as something that doesn’t. Exactly what Kufar is

[@user-mu6eo9ye9p]

أحسنت

[@canonogic]

The Atheist's best argument is that he's actually Agnostic looool