کیا بات ہے جناب بہت خوب ❤️ مبارک ہو 🌹 بہت پیارا انداز ہے اللہ تعالیٰ آپ کو جزائے خیر عطا فرمائے ❤ لیکن اللہ تعالیٰ کا وجود اور توحید امر واقعی یقینی ہے اور یہی ہمارا ایمان شکریہ
Mashallag, Ghamidi sahab nice explaination. People seem to have misunderstood your stance, or they are less educated in these matters. this is because we from our childhood have been fed the notion that science says truth, which is completely baseless claim, correct professional way to say should be science tends to approach truth
اللّٰہ تعالیٰ کی صفات پر غور کرنے کا حکم ہے اور ابلیس نے اللّٰہ تعالیٰ کی ذات پر غور کرنے پر لگا دیا ہے اللّٰہ تعالیٰ ہمیں فضول سوالات سے محفوظ رکھے آمین
Har makhluq ka khaliq hota hai to kainat ka bhi khaliq zarur hai. Apko yeh kehna chahiye lafzo ka sahi istemal bari behaso se bachata hai, or logo ka time zaya nahi hota.
hamne kainat ko bante howe nhi dekha or bante howe dekh skte hain, isiliye yeh sawal uthaya gya hai k kya kainat khud apni khaliq hai, issi k bar-aqs insaan hai jo dekhta hai k mein kis trah paida hota hun or mere ban'ne ka amal kya hai isliye aik haqeeqat k tor par mani jati hai hai baat k insaan makhlooq h
I used to think similarly to a certain extent. But I think we have simplified our everyday Urdu too much, programs such as this are good ways to improve Urdu. Especially considering if one were to study religious literature themselves they should be familiar with this language. Furthermore, much of this “difficult terminology” is technical language, it encapsulates specific ideas and concepts, without its use, meaning can’t be conveyed as effectively. + all of their videos get English subtitles after a little while.
Taimur sab , public go to eat at a restaurant where the food is tasty. If we have to improve our language to understand the message, then one would like to opt for some other channel. Difficult terminologies make the lecture boring because one doesn't understand. Brevity clarity and comprehension are the foundation of good communication skill.
He did not answer the question of the title of this video. He talked about black crows, white crows, fire and smoke, etc, etc, etc. Where is the evidence to prove the existence of God?
He is making an argument for extraordinary events, Such as the birth of Jesus without a father. But this is just a claim. There is no good evidence that this actually happened. So, Mr. Ghamidi is making an argument for an un-verified extraordinary event but this is not sufficient to accept that this has happened.
Once again, Ghamidi Sahab has absolutely ignored the possibility of knowing universals through apriori propositions and logical argumentation. He keeps saying that induction can not give certainty and that is why "Aql" is questionable but that was never the point we initially raised. The point, as we have always maintained, is that logical argumentation, where the premises are apriori or follow from apriori considerations, can not be questioned. The conclusions of apriori universals premises of sound and valid arguments would lead to Truth. Just because induction doesn't lead to Truth necessarily has nothing to do with the actuality of the conclusion of a sound and valid argument with apriori premises. The point remains unanswered and it appears that Ghamidi Sb has completely went over the point/not understood it at all. The question is: If you have a valid and sound argument with apriori premises, does that entail the ACTUALITY of the conclusions? That's the question.
I don't know how you are saying Ghamidi Sahab has ignored the apriori premise where as the whole discussion about decuctive logic from pure reason is included in that. As to answer your question I am just gonna summarize what Ghamidi Sahab has said in the way of analytical proposition of the aprioricity which says that apriori knowledge explains things by the virtue of their meaning and is independent of the factuality, as it is gained from the understanding of the problem in question and by pure reason not by personal experience. The actuality of the conclusion comes under the domain of it being a fact, the analytical proposition of apriori premise is independent of that. We deduce a conclusion from the apriori knowledge about things that a certain thing will behave in a certain way but it will only become a fact when we truly observe the thing in question behaving that exact way, only then will it become a fact, but even then it won't effect the actuality of the conclusion as apriori knowledge is independent of that. Ghamidi Sahab's point is that reasoning can only take us to the point where we can be certain about the possibility of things, the actual event happening or existing can only be confirmed when it actually does. God should exist, can be fathomable by argument and reasoning, God does exist can only be revealed to us by someone who has 1st hand experience like a prophet.
You seem to have a completely distorted view of truth, Truth is not nature, For a person in 4th century all his senses try to tell him that the earth has a sun rotating around it, and all stars are small and fixed, there is no need to doubt his senses. In a similiar way Induction gives you just working models based on emperical evidence, never it gives a truth model. Apriori is considered in deductive logic, even apriori asynthetic assumptions like 1+1=2 is false, The actual wording should be 1+1→2 (one plus one tends to two) {for more explaination refer zenos paradox, and mathematical concept of limits} Truth is unachieveble nither through logic nor through senses [or else truth is just an ideal concept] hence we using syllogisms only can approach truth, never can definitely affirm
I have understood his counter argument and i think he has duly answered it. According to him, even if one premise is deductive (or apriori in your wording) but the second premise is non-deductive, the conclusion will also be inductive. It has to have that slack which the inductive premise doesnt account for. Therefore the conclusion also will have that chance its wrong (Or in other words not 100% correct). And i think he's right. On other hand, the only instance when the CONCLUSION will be apriori is when: BOTH premises are apriori to begin with (Which was never the case here) And i think you can agree.
غامدی صاحب ،اپنے سفید کوے کی مثال دے کر ثابت کیا کہ حضرت عیسی بھی بغیر باپ کے پیدا ہوسکتے ہیں۔غامدی صاحب کالے کووں کے ہوتے ہوئے اگر ایک کوا سفید پیدا ہو سکتا ہے تو کیا کوئی کوا بغیر انڈے کے بھی پیدا ہوسکتا ہے ؟اگر ہو سکتا ہے تو حضرت عیسی بھی بغیر باپ کے پیدا ہو سکتے ہیں اور پھر خدا بھی اپنا بیٹا پیدا کر سکتا ہے اگرچہ کہ قرآن کی آئیت 6:101 صاف بتاتی ہے کہ عیسی اللہ کا بیٹا اس لئے نہیں کہ اللہ کی کوئی بیوی یا پارٹنر نہیں۔تو پھر اللہ نے یہ کیوں کہا کہ مریئم کا بغیر باپ یا پارٹنر کے بیٹا ہو سکتا ہے ۔کیا مریئم اللہ سے زیادہ قدرت رکھتی ہے ؟
اللہ سلامت رکھے آپ کو ❤
Mashallah allah lambi umar ata farmaye ghamidi sb ki
Alhamdulillah
Very Very clear
Jazak ALLAH khairan
کیا بات ہے جناب بہت خوب ❤️ مبارک ہو 🌹 بہت پیارا انداز ہے اللہ تعالیٰ آپ کو جزائے خیر عطا فرمائے ❤ لیکن اللہ تعالیٰ کا وجود اور توحید امر واقعی یقینی ہے اور یہی ہمارا ایمان شکریہ
Mashallah Javed Ahmed Ghamidi SB. Allah pak AAP ko sehat or Zindagi atta farmay .. Ameen
Allah apko lambi zindagi de Ghamidi Shb. Apki shaksiyat se bohat mutasir hua hn. MashaAllah
Wonderful ☺☺☺
JazakAllah
thanx
Wow what an argument it's just beautiful 💯
What a scholar! ❤I want to learn from you,how can i ?
same
Mashallah bahut Achcha tha Agar Urdu Mein Hota To Main acche se samajhta
I love ghamdi sub
Ustaaz e Mohtram♥️
Mashallag, Ghamidi sahab nice explaination. People seem to have misunderstood your stance, or they are less educated in these matters.
this is because we from our childhood have been fed the notion that science says truth, which is completely baseless claim, correct professional way to say should be science tends to approach truth
English subtitles please
English subtitles are available
❤❤❤
اللّٰہ تعالیٰ کی صفات پر غور کرنے کا حکم ہے اور ابلیس نے اللّٰہ تعالیٰ کی ذات پر غور کرنے پر لگا دیا ہے اللّٰہ تعالیٰ ہمیں فضول سوالات سے محفوظ رکھے آمین
yaha Allah ki zaat per guftago nahi ho re, Matak per guftago ho re.
Hasan bhai please use simpler words. Same request from Ghamdi sb
اللہ نے کالا کوا اور ھاروت اور ماروت فرشتے کیوں بھیجے کوئی بتائے قرآن سے ❓
QURAN sura maidah 5:31
Quran sura Bakra 2:102
Sir g Urdu thory asaan alfaaz main bolA karein asan or simple alfaalz
great but sometimes very hard to follow URDU words, please use little easy and common words
I'll help you understand. How can i
گزارش ہے آسان اردو یا آسان زبان میں بات کریں تاکہ سننے والے کے کچھ پلے پڑ سکے
itni urdu bounce ho rhi h
I'll learn it but koi cmnt help kariye
Which part bro?
Make it google
Har makhluq ka khaliq hota hai to kainat ka bhi khaliq zarur hai. Apko yeh kehna chahiye lafzo ka sahi istemal bari behaso se bachata hai, or logo ka time zaya nahi hota.
hamne kainat ko bante howe nhi dekha or bante howe dekh skte hain, isiliye yeh sawal uthaya gya hai k kya kainat khud apni khaliq hai, issi k bar-aqs insaan hai jo dekhta hai k mein kis trah paida hota hun or mere ban'ne ka amal kya hai isliye aik haqeeqat k tor par mani jati hai hai baat k insaan makhlooq h
Difficult terminologies may please be avoided as you are teaching public and not scholars.
I used to think similarly to a certain extent. But I think we have simplified our everyday Urdu too much, programs such as this are good ways to improve Urdu. Especially considering if one were to study religious literature themselves they should be familiar with this language. Furthermore, much of this “difficult terminology” is technical language, it encapsulates specific ideas and concepts, without its use, meaning can’t be conveyed as effectively.
+ all of their videos get English subtitles after a little while.
Taimur sab , public go to eat at a restaurant where the food is tasty. If we have to improve our language to understand the message, then one would like to opt for some other channel. Difficult terminologies make the lecture boring because one doesn't understand. Brevity clarity and comprehension are the foundation of good communication skill.
Urdu sikhiye baraye meherbani
He did not answer the question of the title of this video. He talked about black crows, white crows, fire and smoke, etc, etc, etc.
Where is the evidence to prove the existence of God?
خزایا کے معنی کیا ہے
قضایا ہے ۔ قضیہ کہ جمع
اسکا مطلب کوئی بھی منطق کا جملہ یا مقدمہ بنانا۔
Mushkal hai 😢😢😢
Ye vedio koi professr mushtaq ko bhj d😂
He is making an argument for extraordinary events, Such as the birth of Jesus without a father. But this is just a claim. There is no good evidence that this actually happened. So, Mr. Ghamidi is making an argument for an un-verified extraordinary event but this is not sufficient to accept that this has happened.
Once again, Ghamidi Sahab has absolutely ignored the possibility of knowing universals through apriori propositions and logical argumentation. He keeps saying that induction can not give certainty and that is why "Aql" is questionable but that was never the point we initially raised.
The point, as we have always maintained, is that logical argumentation, where the premises are apriori or follow from apriori considerations, can not be questioned.
The conclusions of apriori universals premises of sound and valid arguments would lead to Truth. Just because induction doesn't lead to Truth necessarily has nothing to do with the actuality of the conclusion of a sound and valid argument with apriori premises.
The point remains unanswered and it appears that Ghamidi Sb has completely went over the point/not understood it at all.
The question is: If you have a valid and sound argument with apriori premises, does that entail the ACTUALITY of the conclusions?
That's the question.
I don't know how you are saying Ghamidi Sahab has ignored the apriori premise where as the whole discussion about decuctive logic from pure reason is included in that. As to answer your question I am just gonna summarize what Ghamidi Sahab has said in the way of analytical proposition of the aprioricity which says that apriori knowledge explains things by the virtue of their meaning and is independent of the factuality, as it is gained from the understanding of the problem in question and by pure reason not by personal experience. The actuality of the conclusion comes under the domain of it being a fact, the analytical proposition of apriori premise is independent of that. We deduce a conclusion from the apriori knowledge about things that a certain thing will behave in a certain way but it will only become a fact when we truly observe the thing in question behaving that exact way, only then will it become a fact, but even then it won't effect the actuality of the conclusion as apriori knowledge is independent of that. Ghamidi Sahab's point is that reasoning can only take us to the point where we can be certain about the possibility of things, the actual event happening or existing can only be confirmed when it actually does. God should exist, can be fathomable by argument and reasoning, God does exist can only be revealed to us by someone who has 1st hand experience like a prophet.
You seem to have a completely distorted view of truth, Truth is not nature, For a person in 4th century all his senses try to tell him that the earth has a sun rotating around it, and all stars are small and fixed, there is no need to doubt his senses.
In a similiar way Induction gives you just working models based on emperical evidence, never it gives a truth model.
Apriori is considered in deductive logic, even apriori asynthetic assumptions like 1+1=2 is false, The actual wording should be 1+1→2 (one plus one tends to two) {for more explaination refer zenos paradox, and mathematical concept of limits}
Truth is unachieveble nither through logic nor through senses [or else truth is just an ideal concept]
hence we using syllogisms only can approach truth, never can definitely affirm
I have understood his counter argument and i think he has duly answered it.
According to him, even if one premise is deductive (or apriori in your wording) but the second premise is non-deductive, the conclusion will also be inductive. It has to have that slack which the inductive premise doesnt account for. Therefore the conclusion also will have that chance its wrong (Or in other words not 100% correct). And i think he's right.
On other hand, the only instance when the CONCLUSION will be apriori is when:
BOTH premises are apriori to begin with (Which was never the case here)
And i think you can agree.
غامدی صاحب ،اپنے سفید کوے کی مثال دے کر ثابت کیا کہ حضرت عیسی بھی بغیر باپ کے پیدا ہوسکتے ہیں۔غامدی صاحب کالے کووں کے ہوتے ہوئے اگر ایک کوا سفید پیدا ہو سکتا ہے تو کیا کوئی کوا بغیر انڈے کے بھی پیدا ہوسکتا ہے ؟اگر ہو سکتا ہے تو حضرت عیسی بھی بغیر باپ کے پیدا ہو سکتے ہیں اور پھر خدا بھی اپنا بیٹا پیدا کر سکتا ہے اگرچہ کہ قرآن کی آئیت 6:101 صاف بتاتی ہے کہ عیسی اللہ کا بیٹا اس لئے نہیں کہ اللہ کی کوئی بیوی یا پارٹنر نہیں۔تو پھر اللہ نے یہ کیوں کہا کہ مریئم کا بغیر باپ یا پارٹنر کے بیٹا ہو سکتا ہے ۔کیا مریئم اللہ سے زیادہ قدرت رکھتی ہے ؟
Haha!
Sawal Kam ...joke ziyada
یار غامدی صاحب کبھی بھی ٹو دی پوائنٹ اور آسان جواب نہیں دیتے۔۔یہ بڑے افسوس کی بات ہے۔۔۔۔
کچھ مطالعہ کیجئے تاکہ فہم بڑ جائے۔ پھر غامدی کو انجوائے کریں۔
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤