WHAT'RE YOU GOING DO?! MOHAMMED HIJAB & 2 CHRISTIANS |SPEAKERS CORNER

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

I haven't any good reason to think this 'Allah' is a reality.

[@umurizo3949]

Do you know what it means by religion ? Is a believe to a supreme power . Is not a blind belief. Its come with a tangible proofs. Use your intelligence to ask the reason of every creations.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@umurizo3949 Yes. I understand the term 'religion'. No. The belief that a particular god exists in reality does NOT come with proofs. Can you present even ONE _evidentiary fact_ that suggests this 'Allah' is a reality?

[@umurizo3949]

​@@Theo_Skeptomai Great 👍. I try my best on your question. I know you are an Atheist. You need one evidentiary fact. Get and read the Quran and prove that the Quran has contradiction and errors. Any single verse that have contradiction or error will prove God doesn't exist. You can read the Quran in English. Read it with open mind.

[@Yournamehere1009]

​@@Theo_Skeptomai I know this might not be good enough for you but I will try. The fact that you can deny God is a proof in of itself. God is what separates you and me from the animals. That voice in your head that tells you dont do this and dont do that also is a proof. We will either believe in a creator or that something comes from nothing so that leaves the only relevant question of "which is more probable?" Or which is better" to believe or not to believe" once its time for us to die? Deal with the pain and you will see because your hear watching folks talk about God means you believe deep down but its buried in some trauma. I will pray for you in hopes to see you 1 day in heaven.

[@Anya-ef3sb]

Allah means god in arabic. Just like eloha or dio in aramaic and spanish

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My situation is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. 2. I personally have never observed a god. 3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[@truthseeker630]

Its true that God cannot be proved now, but without a system, like atheism having no system, for example, you cannot talk about rationality because you have no basis of judgement. Your views are subjective. You can't talk about'substantiated claims' because we are discovering new scientific facts every day, and just because the supernatural can't be proved now, that does not mean it can't be proved or realised in the future. But respect to your view.

[@DrMandarin]

This is why I don't believe you were born from a mother: 1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a mother. 2. I personally have never observed your mother. 3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed your mother. 4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed your mother that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 5. I have never been presented with any valid logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that your mother exists in reality. 6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of your mother, I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of your mother was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of your mother, have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of your mother. I have never encountered vice versa. 9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of your through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have emerged from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created ex nihilo - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of your mother. 11. All claims of ayour mother that I have been presented have either been refuted to MY SATISFACTION or do not present as falsifiable.

[@anasmaknassa2967]

I have two questions to ask, though one of them is like a set of related questions (imo): 1. Do you believe that this universe created itself? 2. How do you know that you exist? How do you know you aren't in a simulation? How do you know that you weren't created just now with memories of your whole life?

[@codingzen869]

#1 Nobody gave Aristotle any functional definition of black hole, that doesn't mean they did not exist back then. 😉

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@codingzen869 Did I state that not having a functional definition of a phenomenon means the phenomenon can be real?

[@hagagkdjd9442]

These 2 people never even went to college. maybe they just convey someone's opinion from a book without looking for evidence and truth from the book they read. Truly wild thought 😅

[@SamayRajib-h2h]

👌🐸

[@ignvongola123]

how are you gonna tell him that he has to use the psr when they haven't read the book that define the psr methode , hijab is literally giving his argument without using the psr formulation yet they argue he is using psr in concept but he is claiming not in formulation so im not sure why they even arguing with him instead of debating his statement.Both seems equal but they're not actually because one aspect of the formulation of psr is explanation and is not required to make an argument even if you can still make a psr argument of the same argument, so yes indeed they did seem underqualified for this discussion and in this case reading the book would have made them understand the psr methode has a specific formulation.The apeal to autority fallacy is not here in this context since they speak with specific terms that need to be very precise to even have a debate.

[@Ryba125]

They are right, as hijab assume a cause is needed to have results, a sustainer to something existing, this is a PSR. At 18:10 he almost admit it. All contingency arguments need it to try to oppose the reply that a contingent first element just is. Himself always ask why something is like it is, or postulate a chain (infinite or not, circular or not) has to be grounded, already assuming it need to be grounded or that a reason has to exist. But he is right, you need no PSR to make an argument, but you need one to reply to critics.

[@ignvongola123]

@Ryba125 PSR has a specific formulation , and no they're not rigth not every argument need the formulation of the psr method but he did say it's is close in concept so im not sure what you and them are evn arguing about , unless you think psr doesn't have a specific formulation that requires the word(concept) explanation

[@Ryba125]

@@ignvongola123 Read the Stanford article, there are multiple formulations of it, but all sharing the same concept, the meat hijab accepted. It doesn't indeed need the word explanation, most modern use 'grounding', which is perfect for dependence, as the guest pointed out. The tree existence is grounded on the sun.