I don't understand what Ahmed is going on about at 37 minutes. He is citing 2:6 which says "Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe." and 2:7 follows it by saying "Allah has sealed their hearts and their hearing, and their sight is covered. They will suffer a tremendous punishment." I'm sorry but how is this not exactly what Aron said? Allah literally says they will not believe because he has sealed their hearts and hearing and covered their eyes. Whether "Kafir" here simply means "unbeliever" or "knowing unbeliever" (i.e. "someone who covers the truth knowingly") has no bearing on the meaning.
@Jlay677 In either case, we're not dealing with a loving or forgiving god. 1 presents a being that plans to see its creations suffer (at least in life with the anxiety of those who would kill them if given the chance) and 2 presents a being that can't forgive a mistake made by those who failed to understand if it turned out to be true. Neither of those beings would be worthy of respect, much less worship.
@Jlay677 That still presents the problem though that there are things that are completely unforgivable to this god. It shouldn't matter what the offense is, anything should be forgivable if given enough time (alive or dead). Truly eternal torture is never justifiable. I guess you haven't met a flat earther? Or do you think they don't actually hold that belief and just want the attention?
Yes, the classic religious text dodge: "everyone who hears this irrefutable truth will believe, but many will be made too proud/to have hard hearts/blind by god, and won't admit it." Momrons, whose primary religious txt was written about 1200 yrs after the quran (although they would say it was TRANSLATED 1200 yrs later, by a dude looking into a hat with some magic rocks in it), use the same basic explanation to justify why 999,999 out of a million people shut the door in the faces of their ubiquitous "missionaries." And anyone who has ever debated a more mainstream christian has been subjected to the good ol' psalm 14:1 of the pbible: "the pfool hath said in his pheart 'there is no pgod'" (extra silent P's added for my own penjoyment). As others have rightly pointed out, that's kind of a dick thing for a god to do when he's going to send you to eternal, unimaginable torment for not accepting and believing in him, but it's great for the faithful flock, who are saved from having to deal with the cognitive dissonance of sincere non-believers.
The only thing that exists is the voice(high) from the amanita muscaria mushroom 🍄 pictured here and if I ask I wish someone would tell me why that and other mushrooms are all in your religious texts, but have been not talked about and removed from the knowledge in the religion you teach?
@@getbennt To whom do you address? Humanity at large? A specific person responsible for "teaching"? Are you claiming that human experiences with mushrooms are the actual "knowledge" and that Religious Belief systems are weak approximations of those experiences? Guess what, the line began 500,000 years ago, you are way late to this apprehension.
@@jjphank you are delusional....none of that is proof of a god. If you really study the bibles (with an open mind) you will find problems with credibility.
He finally lost me at 14:00 into this. All he's saying is the grass is green because God says so. No matter the faith, the argument is the same all across the board.
“God say so,” is an oversimplification, more suitable for, say, preschoolers than thinking adults. Therefore, let me elaborate, “the grass is green because chlorophyll and other such chemicals that inhabit the cells of such a plant refract only green-wavelength light, and those chemicals enable the grass and other vegetation to counterbalance us people and other carbon-exhaling lifeforms on this planet and to release oxygen itself because God said so.”
I used to be a theist once. I was reading a book of jokes and part of one of the jokes, or a corner-of-the-page-comic-sketch read: "God exists because the Coffee Machine MAKES COFFEE!!!!!!!" Whoops. I hit "Post" before finishing my thoughts. Anyway, I initially thought that the "joke" was absurd and not funny at all. But the more I thought about it, the more obviously funny it became. It's because theists have this one-track-mind and to them, anything working the way it's supposed to work is doing so in accordance with god's will. So it becomes apparent that the theist thought process for this joke would have been: "God exists because the coffee machine makes coffee!!! If God didn't exist, this would be a random universe of chaos, where the coffee machine would make anything at any time, for no reason. But it DOESN'T!!!! Therefore, God Exists Because The Coffee Machine MAKES COFFEE!!!!!"
@@serioushamster You'd be surprised about how much we know in regards to the visual processes of living beings. To start with, things would depend largely if the animals in question have both 'rods' and 'cones' in their retinas (as all mammals do). If they have enough 'cones' (cones being the photoreceptor proteins that are sensitive to wavelengths of light between ~400 nM and ~ 800nM and thus process the phenomena that we observe as _colour),_ then the appropriate photoreceptor 'cone' is triggered when it is hit by a photon at a wavelength of roughly 500 nM. This then causes an action potential along the visual nerve/ axon, resulting in the perception of the colour that we associate with the name "green." Other mammals don't have very many 'cones' in their retinas, having instead a large array of 'rods.' The photoreceptor proteins of the 'rods' are triggered by much lower intensity of light and are therefore largely unable to distinguish the wavelength of that light. That means black-and-white vision. Dogs, for example, have a much higher density of 'rods' in their retinas than they have 'cones' and so dogs perceive colour very poorly, but yet they have better vision in the dark, than do humans. Anyway, if it looks "green" to us, it's because light is reflected from the surface* of the thing we're looking at and it hits our retinas at the appropriate wavelength of the colour green, which- as stated above- is around the 550 nano-meter wavelength. The * = The light isn't actually _reflected,_ per se, rather the surface chemistry of the object will absorb the photons that hit it, causing the electrons in those surface layers to become excited and raising their energy levels. The electrons in those surface atoms will then return to their initial state and in doing so, they will emit the energy that they earlier absorbed. The energy that they emit will depend entirely on the surface chemistry of that object, but it will generally fall- as photons- with a wavelength of between 400 and 800 nano meters - what we call _The Visual Spectrum._ So if we see something that's "green," it's because the wavelengths of the photons being emitted from the surface atoms of the object in question are emitting those photons at the "green" level; 550 nM. So if we see it as "green," then any other animal with an adequate number of 'cones' in their retinas will also see it as "green." The wavelength of the photons emitted by the object DO NOT change, based on what creature/ animal/ being is doing the observing. They only change based on the thing being observed and if its surface chemistry is changed in some meaningful way. TLDR: No, if it looks green to us, then it looks green to any other animal that is able to perceive the visual spectrum of EM energy.
@@jonovens7974 Yeah the cabin analogy was....embarrassing. You're supposed to lead off with your strongest argument, and that was possibly the weakest analogy for God I've ever heard. Which is impressive in its own way.
An engineer came to my house. He said he had built it. When I asked for evidence he spoke in a foreign language and then translated it as "I created a space of many rooms." This was obviously impressive evidence, but I felt a need for more, so I asked how strong the foundations are. Again he spoke in what seemed like poetry in a foreign tongue and then translated, "Lo it was built upon the deep and it was mighty." That convinced me.
@@jjphank how do you know that is even a possibility? When did you prove that a "creator" is even possible, much less that one actually exists? You can't postulate something as an explanation for an observation unless you have proven it exists in the first place. Otherwise your "explanation" is a mere PIDOOMA. FIRST you need to prove there is a "creator", investigate what its characteristics and properties are, and only then you can begin to investigate if that "creator" is in fact the cause of the observation you are trying to explain. Your argument is still nothing more than: "I don't know. Therefore, magic" Try again. This time with an actual argument.
@@jjphank nice moving of the goal post with a completely unrelated question follow by a ridiculous god of the gaps assertion you have there. This however is a channel where people actually like to be rational rather than just make up shit and pretend it's a fact...
@@jjphank Why is that the only plausible possibility? Can you demonstrate that an outside creator is even possible? Can you show an example? We've never seen any entity with such power, or even how we would categorize or detect such a being.
@@jjphank "God of the gaps" is a term used for the "We can't explain this currently, so God must have done it". Its a fallacy for several reasons. For one, just because we don't have an explanation and you do, your explanation is no good if you can't demonstrate why its true and provide evidence. Also, there have been a great many phenomenon over the millennia that we couldn't explain, attributed to a God, but later discovered the scientific explanation. Lightning, for instance.
"I can prove god exists". Then proceeds to tell everyone about his qualifications that have nothing to do with the conversation. Then says well it just make sense to me.
True, but I wasn't holding my breath waiting to hear proof, either. I scour these vids, hoping to hear something original and unPratt, to no avail. Atheist, i remain.
I'm so far unable to verify any of his 'qualifications' or even a North American university he was ever registered at. He does not have his P.eng designation, so calling himself an engineer is a lie. Goes with if we don't know it must be God mentality i guess
The qualifications - computing, communications, engineering, etc. - were set-ups for the later slides where he used those keywords in different contexts, like his assertion that the universe is "engineered," that animals have behaviors and knowledge "coded" into them like firmware, that god is in constant communication with all living things ... implying that all life on this planet is like some always-online "internet of things" with god as the MCP. It's all completely specious, of course, but he obviously wanted to give the impression of authority, hoping that if he attached his observations to those established-credentials keywords then it would be assumed that he knew what he was talking about. He really doesn't.
His position is " I do not understand X and if I redefine half the words in the Quran, it says god did it." Marvy. This is less convincing than most Flat Earth arguments.
And the moon has it’s own light, even ibn kathir agreed, Ibn Kathir lived basically at the same time as lon Al Shatir, who lived right before Copernicus who introduced the heliocentric system. The celestial bodies were already well understood at the time. He was referring the sun being a hot light a lamp remember that their lamps were just flames versus a cold light from the moon. Here’s the evidence come caught this, quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/katheer/sura25-aya61.html#katheer
For anyone who doesn't want to sit through the entire thing, here's a summary of the guy's position: "I don't understand anything about anything and I do everything I can NOT to understand, therefore my specific imaginary friend is real". There really is nothing more to it than that, Muslims in particular are always so unprepared, it's scary. The average TAE caller can make a better case than this guy.
A lot of logical fallacies and incredulity as well It was hard to watch especially how he asserted that the stars formed because of God and also how animals receive their natural behaviors from the same God and using a book to justify that He was presupposed to believing everything he presented from the start It was a lot of circular reasoning as well
I on.y listened 10 minutes of this guy nonsense and I can clearly hear he says “well, we don’t really know why this happens”, “ we don’t know why this behaves this way”...... already bored.
@@jjphank sure when the book of physics is added to the bible then we can see it for ourselves scientific laws are descriptive they just explain the facts they are not set in stone rules
Exactly....I don't believe in the paranormal....so a belief in a god is impossible....nobody will ever convince me until they show me god....would I follow her? Probably not, any person that would let millions of children under 5 die every year is no friend of mine!
@@jjphank calm down, Skippy. I'm saying there is no evidence your inaginary friend exists, therefore it would be unreasonable to believe he does. I don't need to make an argument for my position, scientific or otherwise, to show your position to be ridiculous. It's not my fault you're irrational. You know nothing about DNA or thermodynamics, but I'm not here to teach you. I'm just here to laugh at you. 😆🤣😂
@@jjphank oh yeah, well let me show you acarology, acoustics, actinibiology, aeropalynology, adenology, aerostatics, agriology, agrobiology, agroecology, agrology, agrostology, algedonics agology, anemology, angiology, areology, astacology, astrogeology, astronomy, astrophysics, auxology, axiology, aedonology, aedeology, aerobiology, aerodynamics, aerodonetics, and aerolithology. It'll be difficult to top that sciencing I just did. If you don't comment on these words I just showed you, by default you're not talking about science at all. Keep responding with nonsense if you like, it doesn't change the fact that Allah is just your imaginary friend and Islam is just the ridiculous mythology surrounding him. In order to be counted among the ranks rational people, you must reject the claims about gods, monsters, and magic on account of insufficient evidence and obvious mythological nonsense. 😆 You're welcome.
So disappointed that this debate crashed and burned into him only being able to say at the end-look at the trees look around you SMH this isn’t even god of the gaps this is just I want my god to be real to the point of pleading nonsense and he got mad you continued to demand the type of logical evidence that brings truth. Well done Aron but not really much of a challenge
Ahmed: "I'm not going to make traditional cosmological arguments for the existence of God." *proceeds to make traditional cosmological arguments for the existence of God*
Hahah, right. I was listening to his presentation all the while going.... Ontological argument - check Watchmaker argument - check Cosmological argument - check
Tangent Time: Ya know, back when I was young, dumb and full of an ambitious desire to be unstoppable, I used to work in Direct Sales. I sold "Kirby Homecare Systems," which in Australia back then, was essentially a $3,000 vacuum cleaner (they now cost about 5,000 dollars in Oz). Whenever I had an appointment in a house where my hosts would say "We'll take a look, but I have to tell you that we won't be buying anything. We just can't afford to buy anything." I would be dancing on the inside. I'd be happy because I knew it would be a sale. When they say things like that, what they're telling you is "We buy anything that catches our fancy, but this looks really good and that means it's probably really expensive, too!!" Anyway, by the time I'd finished my sales pitch to them and showed them the price (again, it was $3,000- back then), they'd reiterate "Mate, we absolutely LOVE it, especially the paint-sprayer and the upholstry deep clean... All of it, really. But there's no way we can afford $3,000- for it, no matter how much we like it!!" At that point, I knew I'd made the sale, because I'd isolated their objection and they committed to it; They love the product, but price was the only problem. I'd tell them "So it's just too much? If you could afford it you'd buy one, then?" To which, their response was invariably "OF COURSE!!!" Now I had not just my foot in the door, I had half my body, the Kirby and the delivery van in the door!!! I'd then introduce them to our instalment plans with a little subterfuge, which would start when I'd call my boss and "convince her that these people are really great and that they've promised to buy one if they could afford it, but they just can't afford it right now. I wonder if you'd let me offer them the instalments? Please Tracey? I really like these people. I really want to do this for them? What??? You want me to wash your car every weekend this month???? Ok, FINE!!! Can I make them the offer now, please???" I'd go back to the customer now and tell them that I'd convinced her to let me offer you guys our special instalment offer. Under this package, you only need to pay $30- per week, for 48 months (or so. It's been 30 years and I can't remember the plans anymore). So tell me, can you guys afford $30- per week? You could have this one right now, or we could deliver a brand new one in a box, if you'd prefer (offering them a choice between buying it and buying it, instead of choosing between buying it and NOT buying it). Anyway, if they said "Yeah, man. $30- a week is no problem, let's do it!!" then my work was done. if they were still hesitant, I'd have to haggle with them: "I understand. I don't earn much money either. You should see MY house!! [try to get them embarrassed enough to admit that they really can afford $30 a week, as most people can], but I get it. So tell me, how much do you think you could afford, without hurting yourself financially? Would $25 per week be a problem? What about $20 per week. I spend more than that each week when I give loose change to buskers. Can you afford that? For sure? Because if I go back to my boss now and tell her that you can only do it at $20- per week and she agrees to it, but then you guys back out on me, she's going to make me her household slave for the next month. I can't ask her to do this unless you guys are POSITIVE that $20- a week is affordable and acceptable. So, are you in?" And that was it. Once I got their commitment, the sale was made and it was locked in enough that they wouldn't cancel, either. And all this was ALWAYS went EXACTLY the same way EVERY SINGLE TIME that the person answering the door said those special trigger words: "You're fine to come in and show us anything, but I guarantee you that we won't be buying anything. We just can't afford to!" I mean, I did a LOT of appointments and I made a LOT of sales (yes, you'd be offended at how many average Australians ended up buying a $3,000 vacuum cleaner back in the 1990s). I was able to achieve the mythical closing rate of 1-in-1.5 or rather 2 sales from every 3 appointments, which I had thought was just a lie, made up to motivate us, until those days when the boss paraded me through meetings and through meetings with other/ rival offices. Of course, in a way, it WAS a lie. These weren't random appointments I was doing. When I initially met the householders (carding was the first step), I'd decide whether or not to bother going back for an appointment, based on how well I was able to charm them. If they were receptive to me, I'd make sure to come back. If they were wary/ hostile/ suspicious of me, I'd leave a note for the phone girls to either book this card for anyone else if they want, or to throw it away, because I wasn't going to bother doing an appointment with them. So a closing rate of 1-in-1.5 was a lie, since I was carefully screening which families I was doing appointments for. Where others in the office were doing 15 appointments per week and getting lucky if they managed to get a sale, I was doing only one appointment per day and getting two or three sales a week earning over a thousand dollars every week. It wasn't a bad wage for young 17 year old (but the 70+ hour work weeks back in my early days were fucking brutal!!!). TLDR: I didn't expect to wax so verbosely lyrical... I was just trying to draw the comparison between people who ALWAYS say "X" ALWAYS manage to end up doing "Y". I wanted to relate how I had some very intense, very deep experience of this phenomena when I worked in a very manipulative sales job as a young teenager. Anyway, I hope my anecdote was both informative and entertaining for any of you who read it.
@@Raz.C Wasn't expecting to read an anecdote about Australian vacuum cleaners under a video debate about the truth of Islam, but I did and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Hats off to you, sir.
@@damon899 Cheers, mate. Though now that I re-read what I wrote, I can't help but feel that there has to be a more efficient way of making the point I was trying to illustrate. Still, thanks for participating :D
Let's cherry-pick some of Ahmed's arguments: 1) Someone made a house. A house is designed... therefore Allah. 2) In quantum physics particles behave in a weird manner I don't quite understand... therefore Allah. 3) My book has some verses I arbitrarily connect with recent scientific findings therefore Allah. 4) We don't quite have solid explanations for certain cosmic phenomena, therefore Allah. 5) I don't understand ethology, genetic memory, or evolution, therefore... Allah. Conclusion: I actually don't understand shit that makes no sense whatsoever to me, but the book I already accept as "the truth" explains it all, and here are the verses... therefore Allah!!! Explanation: A nifty variant of the archetypal God of the gaps fallacy going round and round in a Ferris wheel. Am I wrong or is this a 40-minute presentation of the "look at the trees" case?
I'd also like to point out his science was wrong. Electrons do get attracted to protons and occasionally low energy electrons are "captured" creating a new neutron. He said they should annihilate because they are anti matter to eachother but that isn't the case. A positron is the anti particle of an electron. Electrons and protons are just oppositely charged. Weird how he can recieve the word of God and get secondary school physics wrong
Love how this guy "cites his expertise" so we know what he is talking about but it's computer science he studied and he talks about physics for the majority of his presentation. Computer science has as much to do with understanding molecular and atomic dynamics as it does with archeology.
@@jjphank 1st: You didn´t make a statement that warrents disproving. you literally just said: "we don´t know x, therefore y, because I interpret an unrelated, subjective text to correlate the two" there is no logic present to attack in that statement. 2nd: there was no circular reasoning present anywhere in what I said. in fact, I didn´t engage in any reasoning, I was just pointing out facts in my first comment. in the second one I expressed a suspicion. 3rd: the scientific method describes a process wherein observations are made and through the application of skepticism, a hypothesis is formed. this hypothesis is then continuously tested and challenged until a better or more complete explaination is found. That is the opposite of what you are doing. You´re retrofitting unrelated pieces to fit your pre-existing worldview while ignoring any implausibilities or inconveniences that would disprove your belief. 4th: the argument wasn´t even about science. I said you don´t know what PROOF means.
Watching this as an ex Muslim. I can't help but smile while watching this because I used to have the same mentality. Its almost embarrassing to remember my past as a Muslim. What I find most interesting, is when discussing with a Muslim about the topic of another religion, say Christianity, they will give you a long list of reasons why Christianity is false, but when it comes to justifying their own religion independently, they use the EXACT same methods as the Christians do...
I’m proud of you ! I was one and extrem one and all I did studied this stupid Quran n hadeeth and waisted my time with these bullshit ! Funny thing is every Muslims still think like him and so sate so sure about what the believe in ! I feel petty and bad for them
@@TonyTony-je8tc well done my friend. I'm proud of you. Now it's time to not dwell on the past but focus on the future and help other Muslims escape this cult
@@TonyTony-je8tc Quran and hadith have some valuable lessons in them and insights into human psychology as presented by sufi scholars but as far as literal interpretations go i just can't get fully on board with the Quran, at least not in the fundamentalist sense.
If anyone mentions anything about the Abrahamic religions, just say Zoro Astralism. Those religions came straight out of India because some guy didn't like the Hindu religion where we know there are countless numbers of deities. So he just made his own religion and said his god is his one true god.
Thank you Aron Ra from Arab Atheists. Thanks to people like you and your work on internet our movement grows daily. Ahmed..... your a lovely man and I wish you well
Thanks to people like you with strong character who stay open-minded, are willing to learn and fight indoctrination in such environments. You are the heros. You show that these efforts are not in vain.
at 30:00 Abdel doesn'T say "Boyle's Law" maybe thats why Aron didn't notice that he has debunked this argument from creationists before. It is true that according to Boyle's Law IDEAL Gases in IDEAL containers would not form stars, but Hydrogen is not an IDEAL gas and space was never an IDEAL container. Abdel is sadly scientifically illiterate and scripturally illiterate to the point where he misreads both to fit his narrative.
@@jjphank Actually, Qur'an is more credible than your book about talking animals, virgin births and hippies on sticks who never came back for His friends.
@@reignorshine. oi, Sunshine. I was merely remarking that Qur'an is more credible, has a mite more credence about it than the Bible does.. I'm a F'n atheist and hate all religion equally. What I was saying, and thought I made clear, was that Qur'an is just that wee bit more sensible-from a theistic outlook. I'm well 'versed' in both of them, in more than one language. Excuse me for having an opinion.
@@jasem222 Since the Quo' ran is pretty much a plagiarism of the Bible that is somewhat amusing. I suppose it is easier when you are writing holy texts and you already have a template ready to connects the dots with. Quite a lot of characters and stories are similar.
@@jjphank the bible has a bunch of absolute nonsense in it, objectively. I'd think that if I was a God, my autobiography would be better fact checked. I'm not a god, and it would be more Accurate.
@@jjphank 400 years is a long time to get your story straight pal. You think cults don't all think like eachother and agree on every point? 🤔 I'm talking about objectively stupid fkin things in the bible, like genesis being out of order just to START. Lol.
"I don't know how this came about, therefore God must've done it." Ahmed is so deep into the God of the Gaps mindset that he doesn't even realize he's simply asserting that God is the source of the phenomena he cites. He literally doesn't realize that he's making a claim that needs to be substantiated. I'm convinced that you could listen to him for 10 hours and he'd still never get beyond this incredibly basic logical pitfall.
@@jjphank I like this comment a lot. How about a compromise? Let's teach children no religion until they have cognitive skills. Let's present the concept of religion after we teach them basic logic. If they still swallow religion that's fine, my guess is they won't, that's why catholics don't want birth control that's why muslims demand children are taught religion before all else. Indoctrination of children is necessary for the propagation of every religion. How is that not something we all fight against. My daughter is the most important thing to me and I will not corral her thinking into a small pen full of hate fill power mongers and sex predators which is all religion has left to do. All the sexual predators are religious and they cry to god for help and forgiveness after they get caught, never before because they think because they are religious they are above the rest of us. If any god puts the rights of one individual ahead of another that is not a god of love that is a man grasping for power over others by convincing fools he has devine knowledge
@@jjphank and you are yet another great example of why religion is toxic. Does logic and science even matter to you? Or even worse, does truth matter to you?
@@jjphank If everything must be created then god must have been created. Otherwise that's just special pleading. And the laws of thermodynamics are just descriptions of how energy and matter interact throughout the universe not laws put in place to force them to behave in a certain way ya doink. And DNA is 4 nucleic acids wound together. Not an instruction list created by some giant sky wizard using magic.
Perhaps he thought that would give him some authority in a subject that he know but do not fully understand. Something that is very common among believers ...
“Gas doesn’t gravitate” I’m pretty sure gas has mass. Does he also think that atoms don’t fuse, because he talks like he can’t understand how stars would form and create new elements in the early universe.
He doesn't understand how the ideal gas laws work. If a gas is placed in the vacuum of space, the volume of space that the gas has to fill becomes infinite and therefore the ideal gas laws cannot apply anymore. The ideal gas laws were based off how gases act on Earth, not in space. He also ignores that the formation of molecules took billions of years because gas molecules have gravity, a very very small amount gravity that is still enough to attract other molecules over massive periods of time. Obviously, over enough time the gas would begin to clump up and produce greater gravitational force and eventually we get stars.
If gas doesn't have mass then why is the solar system called such? It's at the center and the other things near it orbit this mass of gas. If you search, you will find it, just not in religious cults texts.
I always try this thought experiment with reality deniers. Imagine you're looking over a huge amount of space and you're Uber powerful. You introduce your gas and it expands to fill a void. Then into that subspace you introduce small spheres. These small spheres have the ability to attract gas. What would happen? We know that we'd see these spheres with atmospheres. The gas pressure would rise the closer you get to the balls surface. No container is needed to hold the gas pressure and this simple thought experiment is analogous to what we observe with planets in reality. I've had a flerfer go through it with me. He admitted its validity but still said "That's not what we see in reality" You really can't win. That proved to me they were arguing in bad faith.
Aron, I was yelling the same things at my phone. He provided nothing. Islamic apologists definitely have a style. They like just-so stories and anecdotes that they seem to think are profound, but never are.
"I am not presenting a god of the gaps" (I may be misquoting that but think I have the gist right) then appeared to say that unless we could prove how EVERYTHING worked; birds navigate, beavers build dams, bees create hexagons etc, then a god must have done it. If I am interpreting that correctly, then it was almost a textbook god of the gaps.
So ...if I find a house in the middle of nowhere that's vacant I can just move in and God will be my landlord?? Is he ok with pets?? I have 2 pitbulls and an asshole cat who scares us all but we're afraid to ask her to leave....
@@jjphank Stop with that nonsense. The code is a human abstraction, just like letters are abstrations of sounds, and vectors are abstractions of velocity and position. DNA is much more than code. The purpose of encoding it, is to help us process it in computers, with simpler/faster algorithms. If we had infinite processing power, it would be infinitely more effective to just process them as particles floating through space.
If God wanted us to know that he exists he could just appear and say “I built this house.” If I wanted to tell us that I created the universe I wouldn’t leave.fingerprints or tell us in an old book , He has some interesting arguments but he doesn’t show how his arguments say anything about God.
@@moonled If someone doesn't even know you, yet spends all day calling you an evil genocidal murderer. How keen would you be to invite them over to your home? I say giving them the option to change their mind about you is more than fair.
@@michaelj976 Personally, if I didn't want people to think I was an evil, genocidal murderer, I think I'd stop creating people specifically to send to hell when they die with full foreknowledge that they would.
@@JamesiaInc People who reject God are given what they ask for. To be separate from God. The problem is people like you don't understand what that means and how bad it is.
Ahmed, I'm a Physics graduate, I have friends who are Astrophysicists, and I attend an astrophysics meetup every two weeks. I can tell you: No, there is no real issue with the formation of the first stars. Accretion is the accepted explanation, *yes* a cloud of gas *will* collapse under its own gravity. This has been demonstrated in computer models. We may not have seen the first stars yet, we have indirect evidence for then, and maybe direct observation will come in a year or so with the JWST, but it doesn't matter, we have seen later stars in various stages of formation via the same processes. You are trying to argue against known Physics *and* an observed process!
New fan / sub here. How does Aron's head not explode? It's shocking that believers keep using the argument from ignorance, even though it's old and ridiculous, and has beeen pointed out as such for a long time. This guy was totally unprepared. Geez, if he'd a watched just a few Aron Ra videos before booking time with Aron he would have known better than to try such bush-leage assertions. Great job Aron.
14:00 The thing with deliberately vague and "poetic" language is that you can kid yourself it means pretty much whatever you want it to mean. That doesn't mean it's divine revelation from god, just that the words were non-specific and malleable enough for you to be able to interpret them in a way that suits you, like a horoscope prediction.
As a physics PhD I can tell you he misunderstands 100% of the physics he mentions. He also claims science only puts names on things but doesn’t provide explanations, which is of course exactly backwards and a prime example of projection.
Again here's a smart person who has never been challenged on his bullshit. Aron knocked him down just by pointing out the fallacy on his presentations title.after that just another look at the trees personal incredulity rap
Well, I avoid alcohol except on special occasions, I'm klutzy enough sober, but no religious reason for it. Bacon is something I simply enjoy in moderation.
"OMG!!! If things were just the sliiiiiiiightest bit different, then... then things would be different, and we wouldn't exist... Therefore, god!!!" Yes, an invisible, self-creating being with unlimited, blank-cheque magical powers, who communicates ONLY via an angel, who tells one certain man, who tells scribes, who writes a book, is surely the ONLY possible explanation for this profound conundrum. 10/10 flawless logicking.
This god is an engineer analogy is pointless. Engineers do things by following rules. God should be powerful enough to make anything work in any way that he wants.
Achmed's misunderstanding of how gases act only takes into account his misunderstanding of pressure at familiar temperatures. He ignores the aspect of temperature in space. For example, a gas cloud in interstellar space would probably behave more comparable to a gel as we know it.
@@jjphank If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then wouldn't it make more sense if things were LESS complex? The more complexity you add to a machine, the more places it can fail in. The simpler you can create something to fulfill the same task with the same efficiency, the better. And if he's omnipotent, he could make things work as simply or as complex as he wishes.
@@jjphank How did you figure out that there is a god who could make this? How can you demonstrate the truth of your claim? I mean, demonstrate, not argue into "existence"?
Agreed, how can anyone believe that there is a Common Ancestor to the wolf and dog, if there are only Assumptions being made by people who claim that Assumptions are Evidence ?
The more I listen, the more ridiculous this guy sounds, like he’s DESPERATELY trying to convince everyone that he’s “right” WITHOUT VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE
If only god would just come out and say "here I am!" and stop being the king of hide and seek then we wouldn't have to suffer through this presentation.
@@xstatic-ow5mz I think he's just frustrated that this guy is going on a rant about chemistry and astrophysics or whatever the hell he's blabbering about and still hasn't proved a damn thing. He should be intelligent enough, with all of those degrees he has, to realize that none of that crap proves god. He is basically saying "Allah is leaving us breadcrumbs to follow like pigeons and it's up to us to follow the crumbs and he'll be at the end of the trail." All he has to do it SHOW UP! This is all a bunch of BS he's saying. Who gives a crap what the Quran says, just like who cares what the Bible says? He's teaching the Quran. IT'S NOT PROOF OF god.
@@TheNumbaOneMiss God did show up in the form of Jesus Christ but was betrayed and crucified. After 3 days He was resurrected and spoke to a lot of people to prove to them he was telling the truth. The evidence you ask for was given to us thousands of years ago. Is God supposed to do the same thing every generation so that we can all see it?
@@michaelj976 God is eternal, God is beyond time. God has unlimited power... And you're telling me he can't just use that power to guarantee everyone knows he exists?
Sad, yet another theist with no good reason for their belief in gods. And you know that he is no different from the most intelligent theist out there. Put him with a theist who has read and studied all the other religions of the world and can explain all the "proofs" for god, they both will have the same reason for belief, that being by faith.
@@jjphank Energy and matter as well as time and existence expanded from an extremely hot state. We don't know what happened before that and it's pointless to speculate. I can say a magic can of spam created everything, it's meaningless without evidence. The Bible proves nothing. That IS the claim. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, especially when the morals and practices are so barbaric they would be branded criminal to follow today. I don't see your fascination with DNA either. Oh and it did write itself. That's why we have the diversity of life on Earth. DNA is not a code but in analogous to a code. DNA is a sloppy, inaccurate mess full of copying errors, duplicates and mutations. If a God coded that then he's pretty dumb.
@@jjphank We know quite a lot about how the universe got started. In fact there is nothing in the universe that we do not have a good explanation for. And in all those explanations, there is no need for a god to be in involved in any way or form. Now for your side, you have the following problems. 1. You have not shown that gods can actually exist. 2. That gods actually do exist. 3. That your god actually does exist. 4. That your god did anything to either make or maintain anything in the universe. 5. You have not shown what skills, tool and materials your god is supposed to have used to do anything in the universe. So I think maybe you should sit down and shut up. At least until you can come up with an equal or better answer to these questions.
@@jjphank Seems like you have a problem understanding english. I said anything you can point to in the universe, science has a pretty good idea as to how it came about. And in that science explanation, it does not require a god to do anything. Of course, if you doubt this, you can choose one thing and show where a god is needed to either make or maintain it. Now read the above again slowly and see if you can provide something only a god could do. As for that "circular reasoning", I think you have no idea what it is, because there was nothing I said that begs the question. And if you try to quote me, it's best to use what I actually said. Use a cut and paste copy of my original text as that will help you not make a mistake like you did when you claimed I said “God doesn’t exist even if what JHankins says cannot be disproven ,it can’t be right, because God doesn’t exist!" I never said anything like that. Yet another fail I think.
Any god worthy of acknowledging in any way, would be willing and able to make himself known to everyone immediately, without compromising their free will. This is something that is possible under the power of being an omnipotent god. Given that, the existence of atheists in the world prove that no such god exists. Or to put it another way, why is Paul allowed a Damascus road and not I? The only answer is that there was no god on that road and Paul was making it all up. Just like every other claim for gods.
"God gave us, in simple language, directions to his finger prints" Why not just give man a simple road map to atomic cold fusion, solar farming, carbon free propulsion and transport, and cheap space exploration. Instead we get vaguaries about shit that can interpreted in a thousand different ways about magic powers, and essentially the argument from beauty reiterated until our mental faculties shut down and we stop giving a shit anymore.
He thinks like an engineer that needs a manual instead of thinking like a biochemist. His argument is about chemistry and biology but he has no qualification to understand either because his domain requires programming and structures/manuals so he can not understand that biology and chemistry is what makes a macrophage attack a foreign cell NOT a code in its DNA telling it to do so. This is fundamental to his not understanding how wrong his argument is. Bees do not have to be told how to harvest pollen and fertilize flowers, their biology does it for them just like himself as a human does not need to be told how to swallow or pee. Awful arguments
A whole system of claims.A claim cannot shown to be true by a bunch of other claims that aren't shown to be proven. The fact that otherwise we suposedly cannot undrrstand this or that is of no relevance.
30:21 "Smoke state of the universe" Ladies and gentlemen, this is the state of your brain on religion. There wasn't a smoke state. The universe is not a container.
When I first heard that by islamic tradition the uncle of Muhammad's first (and rather dominant) wife had been a Christian and it was him who had set the idea into Muhammad's mind that he had been talking to angel Gabriel while sitting in his cave, I was like: Wow... that's pretty suspicious. Until then I had been under the impression that the connection between Muhammad and Christian doctrine was pretty far-fetched and wondered why he would use that as his foundation. It all made sense then. Sounds to me like Muhammad and his wife searched for a way to unite people under them to gain wealth and power and good old uncle Waraqa knew a reliable trick to achieve that. Without him Islam might have looked completely different or wouldn't have existed at all. Or maybe it was even him and his niece who came up with the whole idea, while Muhammad was just their guinea pig.
I don't understand what Ahmed is going on about at 37 minutes. He is citing 2:6 which says "Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe." and 2:7 follows it by saying "Allah has sealed their hearts and their hearing, and their sight is covered. They will suffer a tremendous punishment."
I'm sorry but how is this not exactly what Aron said? Allah literally says they will not believe because he has sealed their hearts and hearing and covered their eyes. Whether "Kafir" here simply means "unbeliever" or "knowing unbeliever" (i.e. "someone who covers the truth knowingly") has no bearing on the meaning.
@Jlay677 In either case, we're not dealing with a loving or forgiving god. 1 presents a being that plans to see its creations suffer (at least in life with the anxiety of those who would kill them if given the chance) and 2 presents a being that can't forgive a mistake made by those who failed to understand if it turned out to be true.
Neither of those beings would be worthy of respect, much less worship.
@Jlay677 That still presents the problem though that there are things that are completely unforgivable to this god. It shouldn't matter what the offense is, anything should be forgivable if given enough time (alive or dead). Truly eternal torture is never justifiable.
I guess you haven't met a flat earther? Or do you think they don't actually hold that belief and just want the attention?
Yes, the classic religious text dodge: "everyone who hears this irrefutable truth will believe, but many will be made too proud/to have hard hearts/blind by god, and won't admit it." Momrons, whose primary religious txt was written about 1200 yrs after the quran (although they would say it was TRANSLATED 1200 yrs later, by a dude looking into a hat with some magic rocks in it), use the same basic explanation to justify why 999,999 out of a million people shut the door in the faces of their ubiquitous "missionaries." And anyone who has ever debated a more mainstream christian has been subjected to the good ol' psalm 14:1 of the pbible: "the pfool hath said in his pheart 'there is no pgod'" (extra silent P's added for my own penjoyment). As others have rightly pointed out, that's kind of a dick thing for a god to do when he's going to send you to eternal, unimaginable torment for not accepting and believing in him, but it's great for the faithful flock, who are saved from having to deal with the cognitive dissonance of sincere non-believers.
The only thing that exists is the voice(high) from the amanita muscaria mushroom 🍄 pictured here and if I ask I wish someone would tell me why that and other mushrooms are all in your religious texts, but have been not talked about and removed from the knowledge in the religion you teach?
@@getbennt To whom do you address? Humanity at large? A specific person responsible for "teaching"? Are you claiming that human experiences with mushrooms are the actual "knowledge" and that Religious Belief systems are weak approximations of those experiences? Guess what, the line began 500,000 years ago, you are way late to this apprehension.
"If God wanted to be found, he would leave fingerprints."
Or you know, he could just, I don't know, SHOW UP.
Just like the engineer did in his example.
His Facebook page was deleted.
No, no, no, finger prince!
(beat)
I don't think so.
I would like to see him on the nightly news preforming miracles.....exceptional claims deserve exceptional proof!
@@jjphank you are delusional....none of that is proof of a god. If you really study the bibles (with an open mind) you will find problems with credibility.
Man, this is just depressing to listen too what religious indoctrination can do to a person’s mind is truly tragic.
I think an alternate title for this series could be " This is your brain on apologetics".
Atheist indoctrination poisons human soul and mind.
Another 'The book proves the book' argument. They aren't even trying.
Of course not, that would take effort.
More like science proves the book
He finally lost me at 14:00 into this. All he's saying is the grass is green because God says so. No matter the faith, the argument is the same all across the board.
“God say so,” is an oversimplification, more suitable for, say, preschoolers than thinking adults. Therefore, let me elaborate, “the grass is green because chlorophyll and other such chemicals that inhabit the cells of such a plant refract only green-wavelength light, and those chemicals enable the grass and other vegetation to counterbalance us people and other carbon-exhaling lifeforms on this planet and to release oxygen itself because God said so.”
Congrats on making it as far as 14:00. I could only stand his brainless prattle up to 8:00
It looks green to us but might not look green to other animals.
I used to be a theist once. I was reading a book of jokes and part of one of the jokes, or a corner-of-the-page-comic-sketch read:
"God exists because the Coffee Machine MAKES COFFEE!!!!!!!"
Whoops. I hit "Post" before finishing my thoughts.
Anyway, I initially thought that the "joke" was absurd and not funny at all. But the more I thought about it, the more obviously funny it became.
It's because theists have this one-track-mind and to them, anything working the way it's supposed to work is doing so in accordance with god's will. So it becomes apparent that the theist thought process for this joke would have been:
"God exists because the coffee machine makes coffee!!! If God didn't exist, this would be a random universe of chaos, where the coffee machine would make anything at any time, for no reason. But it DOESN'T!!!! Therefore, God Exists Because The Coffee Machine MAKES COFFEE!!!!!"
@@serioushamster
You'd be surprised about how much we know in regards to the visual processes of living beings.
To start with, things would depend largely if the animals in question have both 'rods' and 'cones' in their retinas (as all mammals do). If they have enough 'cones' (cones being the photoreceptor proteins that are sensitive to wavelengths of light between ~400 nM and ~ 800nM and thus process the phenomena that we observe as _colour),_ then the appropriate photoreceptor 'cone' is triggered when it is hit by a photon at a wavelength of roughly 500 nM. This then causes an action potential along the visual nerve/ axon, resulting in the perception of the colour that we associate with the name "green."
Other mammals don't have very many 'cones' in their retinas, having instead a large array of 'rods.' The photoreceptor proteins of the 'rods' are triggered by much lower intensity of light and are therefore largely unable to distinguish the wavelength of that light. That means black-and-white vision. Dogs, for example, have a much higher density of 'rods' in their retinas than they have 'cones' and so dogs perceive colour very poorly, but yet they have better vision in the dark, than do humans.
Anyway, if it looks "green" to us, it's because light is reflected from the surface* of the thing we're looking at and it hits our retinas at the appropriate wavelength of the colour green, which- as stated above- is around the 550 nano-meter wavelength. The * = The light isn't actually _reflected,_ per se, rather the surface chemistry of the object will absorb the photons that hit it, causing the electrons in those surface layers to become excited and raising their energy levels. The electrons in those surface atoms will then return to their initial state and in doing so, they will emit the energy that they earlier absorbed. The energy that they emit will depend entirely on the surface chemistry of that object, but it will generally fall- as photons- with a wavelength of between 400 and 800 nano meters - what we call _The Visual Spectrum._
So if we see something that's "green," it's because the wavelengths of the photons being emitted from the surface atoms of the object in question are emitting those photons at the "green" level; 550 nM. So if we see it as "green," then any other animal with an adequate number of 'cones' in their retinas will also see it as "green." The wavelength of the photons emitted by the object DO NOT change, based on what creature/ animal/ being is doing the observing. They only change based on the thing being observed and if its surface chemistry is changed in some meaningful way.
TLDR: No, if it looks green to us, then it looks green to any other animal that is able to perceive the visual spectrum of EM energy.
I'm listening for exactly three and a half minutes and I can already tell this is too easy for Aron.
that's the house, thats where i skipped thru to the end of his 'presentation'
@@jonovens7974 Yeah the cabin analogy was....embarrassing. You're supposed to lead off with your strongest argument, and that was possibly the weakest analogy for God I've ever heard. Which is impressive in its own way.
Low hanging Muslim fruit. 😂
Like Aron said: “If I gave you 10 hours, you cannot present the argument.” He was right.
I wish we could see Aron's face during the "presentation".
🍺🍻+🤠=🧐🤔😕😩🤐
Also the apologist 🤥🙇🧑🦯😱😠😡🥺😥😢😰
That wouldve been great. His facial expressions wouldve been more entertaining. LoL
-Why do you believe in Allah?
-Because Allah
Why don't t you believe in Allah? Because Allah.
An engineer came to my house. He said he had built it. When I asked for evidence he spoke in a foreign language and then translated it as "I created a space of many rooms." This was obviously impressive evidence, but I felt a need for more, so I asked how strong the foundations are. Again he spoke in what seemed like poetry in a foreign tongue and then translated, "Lo it was built upon the deep and it was mighty." That convinced me.
Greatly said bro
Yes I'm confused and lost ..good job😂
😂⚡
i’m embarrassed to have believed in any god
"It is against our science, but it happened" (on gas forming suns)
No it isn't against our science, mass attracts mass, gas has mass.
@@jjphank how do you know that is even a possibility? When did you prove that a "creator" is even possible, much less that one actually exists?
You can't postulate something as an explanation for an observation unless you have proven it exists in the first place. Otherwise your "explanation" is a mere PIDOOMA.
FIRST you need to prove there is a "creator", investigate what its characteristics and properties are, and only then you can begin to investigate if that "creator" is in fact the cause of the observation you are trying to explain.
Your argument is still nothing more than: "I don't know. Therefore, magic"
Try again. This time with an actual argument.
@@jjphank nice moving of the goal post with a completely unrelated question follow by a ridiculous god of the gaps assertion you have there. This however is a channel where people actually like to be rational rather than just make up shit and pretend it's a fact...
@@jjphank Why is that the only plausible possibility? Can you demonstrate that an outside creator is even possible? Can you show an example? We've never seen any entity with such power, or even how we would categorize or detect such a being.
@@jjphank The Bible is not a scientific text. Provide specific evidence that an omnipotent being can exist that isn't a God of the Gaps fallacy.
@@jjphank "God of the gaps" is a term used for the "We can't explain this currently, so God must have done it". Its a fallacy for several reasons. For one, just because we don't have an explanation and you do, your explanation is no good if you can't demonstrate why its true and provide evidence. Also, there have been a great many phenomenon over the millennia that we couldn't explain, attributed to a God, but later discovered the scientific explanation. Lightning, for instance.
"I can prove god exists". Then proceeds to tell everyone about his qualifications that have nothing to do with the conversation. Then says well it just make sense to me.
Exaxtly.
True, but I wasn't holding my breath waiting to hear proof, either. I scour these vids, hoping to hear something original and unPratt, to no avail.
Atheist, i remain.
I'm so far unable to verify any of his 'qualifications' or even a North American university he was ever registered at. He does not have his P.eng designation, so calling himself an engineer is a lie. Goes with if we don't know it must be God mentality i guess
I thought he just introduced himself. What followed after that was way worse.
The qualifications - computing, communications, engineering, etc. - were set-ups for the later slides where he used those keywords in different contexts, like his assertion that the universe is "engineered," that animals have behaviors and knowledge "coded" into them like firmware, that god is in constant communication with all living things ... implying that all life on this planet is like some always-online "internet of things" with god as the MCP.
It's all completely specious, of course, but he obviously wanted to give the impression of authority, hoping that if he attached his observations to those established-credentials keywords then it would be assumed that he knew what he was talking about. He really doesn't.
His position is " I do not understand X and if I redefine half the words in the Quran, it says god did it." Marvy. This is less convincing than most Flat Earth arguments.
And the Qur'an says the earth is flat lmao
@@palestinianhummus9251lol
And the moon has it’s own light, even ibn kathir agreed,
Ibn Kathir lived basically at the same time as lon Al Shatir, who lived right before Copernicus who introduced the heliocentric system. The celestial bodies were already well understood at the time.
He was referring the sun being a hot light a lamp remember that their lamps were just flames versus a cold light from the moon.
Here’s the evidence come caught this,
quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/katheer/sura25-aya61.html#katheer
For anyone who doesn't want to sit through the entire thing, here's a summary of the guy's position: "I don't understand anything about anything and I do everything I can NOT to understand, therefore my specific imaginary friend is real". There really is nothing more to it than that, Muslims in particular are always so unprepared, it's scary. The average TAE caller can make a better case than this guy.
A lot of logical fallacies and incredulity as well
It was hard to watch especially how he asserted that the stars formed because of God and also how animals receive their natural behaviors from the same God and using a book to justify that
He was presupposed to believing everything he presented from the start
It was a lot of circular reasoning as well
Thanks man, I can go back listened to some Gojira...!
I on.y listened 10 minutes of this guy nonsense and I can clearly hear he says “well, we don’t really know why this happens”, “ we don’t know why this behaves this way”...... already bored.
Many muslims stay in Muslim enclaves so they never get challenged the threat of sharia keeps non believers in their communities in the closet
@@jjphank sure when the book of physics is added to the bible then we can see it for ourselves scientific laws are descriptive they just explain the facts they are not set in stone rules
This crazy chef spoke for 40 minutes and gave no argument for his imaginary friend or ridiculous mythology.
Exactly....I don't believe in the paranormal....so a belief in a god is impossible....nobody will ever convince me until they show me god....would I follow her? Probably not, any person that would let millions of children under 5 die every year is no friend of mine!
@@jjphank demonstrate your imaginary friend exists, then we'll talk about what he could have done.
@@jjphank the only thing you have demonstrated is your scientific ignorance, and that certainly does not help your position.
@@jjphank calm down, Skippy. I'm saying there is no evidence your inaginary friend exists, therefore it would be unreasonable to believe he does. I don't need to make an argument for my position, scientific or otherwise, to show your position to be ridiculous. It's not my fault you're irrational. You know nothing about DNA or thermodynamics, but I'm not here to teach you. I'm just here to laugh at you. 😆🤣😂
@@jjphank oh yeah, well let me show you acarology, acoustics, actinibiology, aeropalynology, adenology, aerostatics, agriology, agrobiology, agroecology, agrology, agrostology, algedonics agology, anemology, angiology, areology, astacology, astrogeology, astronomy, astrophysics, auxology, axiology, aedonology, aedeology, aerobiology, aerodynamics, aerodonetics, and aerolithology. It'll be difficult to top that sciencing I just did. If you don't comment on these words I just showed you, by default you're not talking about science at all.
Keep responding with nonsense if you like, it doesn't change the fact that Allah is just your imaginary friend and Islam is just the ridiculous mythology surrounding him. In order to be counted among the ranks rational people, you must reject the claims about gods, monsters, and magic on account of insufficient evidence and obvious mythological nonsense. 😆
You're welcome.
Islamic apologetics have not improved since the Hamza Tzortzis days, if anything there has been a regression
I didn't realize the Hamza Tzortzis days were over.
So disappointed that this debate crashed and burned into him only being able to say at the end-look at the trees look around you SMH this isn’t even god of the gaps this is just I want my god to be real to the point of pleading nonsense and he got mad you continued to demand the type of logical evidence that brings truth. Well done Aron but not really much of a challenge
"debate crashed and burned " You are being generous.
This is common with Muslims.
Honestly, they are amateurs with this stuff.
@antediluvianatheist5262 kinda mes you wonder what kind of peaceful arguments they came up with back in the day to get the religion off the ground.
Ahmed: "I'm not going to make traditional cosmological arguments for the existence of God."
*proceeds to make traditional cosmological arguments for the existence of God*
Whenever someone says "I'm not trying to" or "I don't mean that" it shows they know their claim is wrong before the can even say it.
Hahah, right. I was listening to his presentation all the while going....
Ontological argument - check
Watchmaker argument - check
Cosmological argument - check
Tangent Time:
Ya know, back when I was young, dumb and full of an ambitious desire to be unstoppable, I used to work in Direct Sales. I sold "Kirby Homecare Systems," which in Australia back then, was essentially a $3,000 vacuum cleaner (they now cost about 5,000 dollars in Oz). Whenever I had an appointment in a house where my hosts would say "We'll take a look, but I have to tell you that we won't be buying anything. We just can't afford to buy anything." I would be dancing on the inside. I'd be happy because I knew it would be a sale. When they say things like that, what they're telling you is "We buy anything that catches our fancy, but this looks really good and that means it's probably really expensive, too!!"
Anyway, by the time I'd finished my sales pitch to them and showed them the price (again, it was $3,000- back then), they'd reiterate "Mate, we absolutely LOVE it, especially the paint-sprayer and the upholstry deep clean... All of it, really. But there's no way we can afford $3,000- for it, no matter how much we like it!!" At that point, I knew I'd made the sale, because I'd isolated their objection and they committed to it; They love the product, but price was the only problem. I'd tell them "So it's just too much? If you could afford it you'd buy one, then?" To which, their response was invariably "OF COURSE!!!" Now I had not just my foot in the door, I had half my body, the Kirby and the delivery van in the door!!!
I'd then introduce them to our instalment plans with a little subterfuge, which would start when I'd call my boss and "convince her that these people are really great and that they've promised to buy one if they could afford it, but they just can't afford it right now. I wonder if you'd let me offer them the instalments? Please Tracey? I really like these people. I really want to do this for them? What??? You want me to wash your car every weekend this month???? Ok, FINE!!! Can I make them the offer now, please???" I'd go back to the customer now and tell them that I'd convinced her to let me offer you guys our special instalment offer. Under this package, you only need to pay $30- per week, for 48 months (or so. It's been 30 years and I can't remember the plans anymore). So tell me, can you guys afford $30- per week? You could have this one right now, or we could deliver a brand new one in a box, if you'd prefer (offering them a choice between buying it and buying it, instead of choosing between buying it and NOT buying it).
Anyway, if they said "Yeah, man. $30- a week is no problem, let's do it!!" then my work was done. if they were still hesitant, I'd have to haggle with them: "I understand. I don't earn much money either. You should see MY house!! [try to get them embarrassed enough to admit that they really can afford $30 a week, as most people can], but I get it. So tell me, how much do you think you could afford, without hurting yourself financially? Would $25 per week be a problem? What about $20 per week. I spend more than that each week when I give loose change to buskers. Can you afford that? For sure? Because if I go back to my boss now and tell her that you can only do it at $20- per week and she agrees to it, but then you guys back out on me, she's going to make me her household slave for the next month. I can't ask her to do this unless you guys are POSITIVE that $20- a week is affordable and acceptable. So, are you in?"
And that was it. Once I got their commitment, the sale was made and it was locked in enough that they wouldn't cancel, either. And all this was ALWAYS went EXACTLY the same way EVERY SINGLE TIME that the person answering the door said those special trigger words: "You're fine to come in and show us anything, but I guarantee you that we won't be buying anything. We just can't afford to!" I mean, I did a LOT of appointments and I made a LOT of sales (yes, you'd be offended at how many average Australians ended up buying a $3,000 vacuum cleaner back in the 1990s). I was able to achieve the mythical closing rate of 1-in-1.5 or rather 2 sales from every 3 appointments, which I had thought was just a lie, made up to motivate us, until those days when the boss paraded me through meetings and through meetings with other/ rival offices. Of course, in a way, it WAS a lie. These weren't random appointments I was doing. When I initially met the householders (carding was the first step), I'd decide whether or not to bother going back for an appointment, based on how well I was able to charm them. If they were receptive to me, I'd make sure to come back. If they were wary/ hostile/ suspicious of me, I'd leave a note for the phone girls to either book this card for anyone else if they want, or to throw it away, because I wasn't going to bother doing an appointment with them. So a closing rate of 1-in-1.5 was a lie, since I was carefully screening which families I was doing appointments for. Where others in the office were doing 15 appointments per week and getting lucky if they managed to get a sale, I was doing only one appointment per day and getting two or three sales a week earning over a thousand dollars every week. It wasn't a bad wage for young 17 year old (but the 70+ hour work weeks back in my early days were fucking brutal!!!).
TLDR: I didn't expect to wax so verbosely lyrical... I was just trying to draw the comparison between people who ALWAYS say "X" ALWAYS manage to end up doing "Y". I wanted to relate how I had some very intense, very deep experience of this phenomena when I worked in a very manipulative sales job as a young teenager. Anyway, I hope my anecdote was both informative and entertaining for any of you who read it.
@@Raz.C Wasn't expecting to read an anecdote about Australian vacuum cleaners under a video debate about the truth of Islam, but I did and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Hats off to you, sir.
@@damon899
Cheers, mate.
Though now that I re-read what I wrote, I can't help but feel that there has to be a more efficient way of making the point I was trying to illustrate.
Still, thanks for participating :D
Let's cherry-pick some of Ahmed's arguments: 1) Someone made a house. A house is designed... therefore Allah. 2) In quantum physics particles behave in a weird manner I don't quite understand... therefore Allah. 3) My book has some verses I arbitrarily connect with recent scientific findings therefore Allah. 4) We don't quite have solid explanations for certain cosmic phenomena, therefore Allah. 5) I don't understand ethology, genetic memory, or evolution, therefore... Allah.
Conclusion: I actually don't understand shit that makes no sense whatsoever to me, but the book I already accept as "the truth" explains it all, and here are the verses... therefore Allah!!! Explanation: A nifty variant of the archetypal God of the gaps fallacy going round and round in a Ferris wheel. Am I wrong or is this a 40-minute presentation of the "look at the trees" case?
I'd also like to point out his science was wrong. Electrons do get attracted to protons and occasionally low energy electrons are "captured" creating a new neutron. He said they should annihilate because they are anti matter to eachother but that isn't the case. A positron is the anti particle of an electron. Electrons and protons are just oppositely charged. Weird how he can recieve the word of God and get secondary school physics wrong
@@TgarMask Therefore Allah! 😆
I lost count of logical fallacies ahmed made
5, he just repeated them a lot.
That is his Muslim heritage. Those are not his fallacies.
I can't believe Aron let him monologue for 20 minutes without interrupting
Patience.... Just watching the guy dig deeper 😂🤦🏻♂️
AronRa is just a gentleman like that 🍷
It was an agreed upon format.
I'm not sure interrupting was needed anyway.
Why interrupt a person digging the proverbial grave for their own position, arguments and religion in general?
Love how this guy "cites his expertise" so we know what he is talking about but it's computer science he studied and he talks about physics for the majority of his presentation. Computer science has as much to do with understanding molecular and atomic dynamics as it does with archeology.
@@jjphank There is absolutely no God in any evidence or anything in this world, YOU and others are just DELUSIONAL and not scientifically sound
@@jjphank i don't think you know what "prove" means.
@@jjphank 1st: You didn´t make a statement that warrents disproving. you literally just said: "we don´t know x, therefore y, because I interpret an unrelated, subjective text to correlate the two" there is no logic present to attack in that statement.
2nd: there was no circular reasoning present anywhere in what I said. in fact, I didn´t engage in any reasoning, I was just pointing out facts in my first comment. in the second one I expressed a suspicion.
3rd: the scientific method describes a process wherein observations are made and through the application of skepticism, a hypothesis is formed. this hypothesis is then continuously tested and challenged until a better or more complete explaination is found. That is the opposite of what you are doing. You´re retrofitting unrelated pieces to fit your pre-existing worldview while ignoring any implausibilities or inconveniences that would disprove your belief.
4th: the argument wasn´t even about science. I said you don´t know what PROOF means.
@@jjphank that is literally the definition of science, my dude. I don't know what you're doing, but it aint science
@@jjphank you sond pretty desperate ngl.
Watching this as an ex Muslim. I can't help but smile while watching this because I used to have the same mentality. Its almost embarrassing to remember my past as a Muslim.
What I find most interesting, is when discussing with a Muslim about the topic of another religion, say Christianity, they will give you a long list of reasons why Christianity is false, but when it comes to justifying their own religion independently, they use the EXACT same methods as the Christians do...
I’m proud of you ! I was one and extrem one and all I did studied this stupid Quran n hadeeth and waisted my time with these bullshit ! Funny thing is every Muslims still think like him and so sate so sure about what the believe in ! I feel petty and bad for them
@@TonyTony-je8tc well done my friend. I'm proud of you.
Now it's time to not dwell on the past but focus on the future and help other Muslims escape this cult
I am a year late, but I am also an ex muslim, happy for u that u got freed
@@TonyTony-je8tc Quran and hadith have some valuable lessons in them and insights into human psychology as presented by sufi scholars but as far as literal interpretations go i just can't get fully on board with the Quran, at least not in the fundamentalist sense.
If anyone mentions anything about the Abrahamic religions, just say Zoro Astralism. Those religions came straight out of India because some guy didn't like the Hindu religion where we know there are countless numbers of deities. So he just made his own religion and said his god is his one true god.
Thank you Aron Ra from Arab Atheists. Thanks to people like you and your work on internet our movement grows daily. Ahmed..... your a lovely man and I wish you well
Thanks to people like you with strong character who stay open-minded, are willing to learn and fight indoctrination in such environments. You are the heros. You show that these efforts are not in vain.
at 30:00 Abdel doesn'T say "Boyle's Law" maybe thats why Aron didn't notice that he has debunked this argument from creationists before. It is true that according to Boyle's Law IDEAL Gases in IDEAL containers would not form stars, but Hydrogen is not an IDEAL gas and space was never an IDEAL container.
Abdel is sadly scientifically illiterate and scripturally illiterate to the point where he misreads both to fit his narrative.
Nothing is even close to an ideal gas when you have enough of it for its gravity to be important.
Missed the start. Caught the end. Not all that certain I need to know more.
As you say, sir; Finding Truth is an ironic name, if not paradoxical.
Without exception, any name with the word 'Truth' in it, will contain none of it.
Yes, people use names like truth seeker, finding truth, are ironic because they hear evidence and say, no I'm not looking for evidence, just truth.
@@tyrionlannister3459
Great... I've got an imp on my side, how wonderful. ; )
@@andrewheld2475
Yes, let my pseudonym portray me as I'm not who I really am.
That's what I want hoomans to do.
Unsupported assertions is not evidence
Period
God of the gaps
Question begging
Incredulity
Circular reasoning
all religitards r loaded with that junk
@@jjphank Actually, Qur'an is more credible than your book about talking animals, virgin births and hippies on sticks who never came back for His friends.
@@jasem222 quran is not credible neither is the bible .Get over it.
@@reignorshine. oi, Sunshine. I was merely remarking that Qur'an is more credible, has a mite more credence about it than the Bible does.. I'm a F'n atheist and hate all religion equally. What I was saying, and thought I made clear, was that Qur'an is just that wee bit more sensible-from a theistic outlook. I'm well 'versed' in both of them, in more than one language. Excuse me for having an opinion.
@@jasem222 Since the Quo' ran is pretty much a plagiarism of the Bible that is somewhat amusing. I suppose it is easier when you are writing holy texts and you already have a template ready to connects the dots with. Quite a lot of characters and stories are similar.
God of the gaps. God of the gaps. God of the gaps.
@@jjphank the bible has a bunch of absolute nonsense in it, objectively. I'd think that if I was a God, my autobiography would be better fact checked. I'm not a god, and it would be more Accurate.
@@jjphank 400 years is a long time to get your story straight pal. You think cults don't all think like eachother and agree on every point? 🤔
I'm talking about objectively stupid fkin things in the bible, like genesis being out of order just to START. Lol.
@@jjphank your God started writing a cook book for a universe, smoked too much meth and wrote down the wrong ingredients and temperature.
@@jjphank don't talk shit!
@@jjphank
Really?
What process did you use to arrive at this conclusion?
"I don't know how this came about, therefore God must've done it." Ahmed is so deep into the God of the Gaps mindset that he doesn't even realize he's simply asserting that God is the source of the phenomena he cites. He literally doesn't realize that he's making a claim that needs to be substantiated. I'm convinced that you could listen to him for 10 hours and he'd still never get beyond this incredibly basic logical pitfall.
he reminded me of nadir ahmed, both with fanatic bee arguments and the way he argued
It's about time we started teaching physics before we start teaching religion.
That would require math.
@@jjphank I like this comment a lot. How about a compromise? Let's teach children no religion until they have cognitive skills. Let's present the concept of religion after we teach them basic logic. If they still swallow religion that's fine, my guess is they won't, that's why catholics don't want birth control that's why muslims demand children are taught religion before all else. Indoctrination of children is necessary for the propagation of every religion. How is that not something we all fight against. My daughter is the most important thing to me and I will not corral her thinking into a small pen full of hate fill power mongers and sex predators which is all religion has left to do. All the sexual predators are religious and they cry to god for help and forgiveness after they get caught, never before because they think because they are religious they are above the rest of us. If any god puts the rights of one individual ahead of another that is not a god of love that is a man grasping for power over others by convincing fools he has devine knowledge
@@jjphank and you are yet another great example of why religion is toxic. Does logic and science even matter to you? Or even worse, does truth matter to you?
@@jjphank dude he is talking about YOU LOL your so clueless and trying desperately to sell a car to us
@@jjphank If everything must be created then god must have been created. Otherwise that's just special pleading. And the laws of thermodynamics are just descriptions of how energy and matter interact throughout the universe not laws put in place to force them to behave in a certain way ya doink. And DNA is 4 nucleic acids wound together. Not an instruction list created by some giant sky wizard using magic.
In summary: Ahmed: "You're not listening." AronRa: "Well, say something worth listening to!"
Ahmed's voice alone was cutting through me like a knife. AronRa demonstrated the patience of a saint with this joker.
Why does having an engineering degree make him credible about religion?
Perhaps he thought that would give him some authority in a subject that he know but do not fully understand. Something that is very common among believers ...
@@arieloq yep...
I guess in the same way a fake degree from a paper mill made inmate #06452-017 an 'expert' on evolution.
I feel like most of the people watching this channel are more credible to take part in this discussion than he is.
It doesn't.
That's the argument from authority fallacy 100% sadly.
Ahmed's presentaion ends at 20:10 HTH
Thank you Jack...
What a good boy
Brilliant work as always Aron!!! Keep it up buddy!!!
“Gas doesn’t gravitate”
I’m pretty sure gas has mass.
Does he also think that atoms don’t fuse, because he talks like he can’t understand how stars would form and create new elements in the early universe.
Jupiter has great gravitational influence of our solar system....mostly made of gas
He doesn't understand how the ideal gas laws work. If a gas is placed in the vacuum of space, the volume of space that the gas has to fill becomes infinite and therefore the ideal gas laws cannot apply anymore. The ideal gas laws were based off how gases act on Earth, not in space. He also ignores that the formation of molecules took billions of years because gas molecules have gravity, a very very small amount gravity that is still enough to attract other molecules over massive periods of time. Obviously, over enough time the gas would begin to clump up and produce greater gravitational force and eventually we get stars.
I'm pretty sure the sun is a ball of gas that has gravity. Theists need to stop using "science" to prove their myths.
If gas doesn't have mass then why is the solar system called such?
It's at the center and the other things near it orbit this mass of gas.
If you search, you will find it, just not in religious cults texts.
He's too far gone. The poison and absurdity of religion is at right at the base of his roots.
gas can't self-gravitate... because it expands in a container? holy... that's some top notch ignorance.
I always try this thought experiment with reality deniers.
Imagine you're looking over a huge amount of space and you're Uber powerful. You introduce your gas and it expands to fill a void.
Then into that subspace you introduce small spheres. These small spheres have the ability to attract gas.
What would happen?
We know that we'd see these spheres with atmospheres. The gas pressure would rise the closer you get to the balls surface.
No container is needed to hold the gas pressure and this simple thought experiment is analogous to what we observe with planets in reality.
I've had a flerfer go through it with me. He admitted its validity but still said "That's not what we see in reality"
You really can't win. That proved to me they were arguing in bad faith.
Good to c u back.Aron love qnd huge respect from aethist community of Nepal🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Aron, I was yelling the same things at my phone. He provided nothing. Islamic apologists definitely have a style. They like just-so stories and anecdotes that they seem to think are profound, but never are.
Do you know that your phone will never answer you?
@@arieloq neither will Allah
@@M15TRR3CT4NGL I totally agree on that.
@@arieloq actually, can't seem to shut it up... or rather my tablet. Even when I'm not talking to it, it's answering anyway...
@@jjphank How about the category of evolution?
"I am not presenting a god of the gaps" (I may be misquoting that but think I have the gist right) then appeared to say that unless we could prove how EVERYTHING worked; birds navigate, beavers build dams, bees create hexagons etc, then a god must have done it.
If I am interpreting that correctly, then it was almost a textbook god of the gaps.
You should invite Ahmed to a beer so that he can relax and think about the nonsense...
And a bacon sandwich....
So ...if I find a house in the middle of nowhere that's vacant I can just move in and God will be my landlord?? Is he ok with pets?? I have 2 pitbulls and an asshole cat who scares us all but we're afraid to ask her to leave....
@@jjphank DNA isn't a code.
@@jjphank Stop with that nonsense. The code is a human abstraction, just like letters are abstrations of sounds, and vectors are abstractions of velocity and position. DNA is much more than code. The purpose of encoding it, is to help us process it in computers, with simpler/faster algorithms. If we had infinite processing power, it would be infinitely more effective to just process them as particles floating through space.
Sorry the pitbulls will have to go, dogs are considered haram by the chief goat herder.
@@jjphank even if what you're saying was correct, how would that indicate the existence of a god?
@@jjphank Literally everything _"contains"_ informatien. Empty space _"contains"_ information. Get to the point.
I lost braincells listening to this
@@jjphank I lost brain cells when he forgot that gas has mass...
I happen to value my blobs of tissue though so I regret watching this video : (
@@jjphank jesus would be so proud that you ignore his greatest commandment. There is no hate like christian hate!
No refunds, sorry.
I love how absolutely hostile Aron is. It's what this kind of sophistry calls for.
@@louisbarrow4671 Allah and hell are intergenerational scams used to control people. Break the cycle.
If God wanted us to know that he exists he could just appear and say “I built this house.” If I wanted to tell
us that I created the universe I wouldn’t leave.fingerprints or tell us in an old book ,
He has some interesting arguments but he doesn’t show how his arguments say anything about God.
@@moonled If someone doesn't even know you, yet spends all day calling you an evil genocidal murderer. How keen would you be to invite them over to your home?
I say giving them the option to change their mind about you is more than fair.
@@michaelj976 Personally, if I didn't want people to think I was an evil, genocidal murderer, I think I'd stop creating people specifically to send to hell when they die with full foreknowledge that they would.
@@JamesiaInc People who reject God are given what they ask for. To be separate from God. The problem is people like you don't understand what that means and how bad it is.
You need Lawrence Krauss to reply to the idea that hydrogen doesn’t clump together to create stars.. we still see formations of nee stars
I admire Aron 's patience!
.
Ahmed, I'm a Physics graduate, I have friends who are Astrophysicists, and I attend an astrophysics meetup every two weeks. I can tell you: No, there is no real issue with the formation of the first stars. Accretion is the accepted explanation, *yes* a cloud of gas *will* collapse under its own gravity. This has been demonstrated in computer models. We may not have seen the first stars yet, we have indirect evidence for then, and maybe direct observation will come in a year or so with the JWST, but it doesn't matter, we have seen later stars in various stages of formation via the same processes. You are trying to argue against known Physics *and* an observed process!
Today I learned: Jupiter doesn't exist.
Thanks, Ahmed!
Aron is so correct in calling this man out on the emptiness of this presentation.
New fan / sub here. How does Aron's head not explode? It's shocking that believers keep using the argument from ignorance, even though it's old and ridiculous, and has beeen pointed out as such for a long time. This guy was totally unprepared. Geez, if he'd a watched just a few Aron Ra videos before booking time with Aron he would have known better than to try such bush-leage assertions. Great job Aron.
Love you Aron! It's hilarious to see Ahmed trying to justify ridiculousness. I sort of feel sorry for him...
@@jjphank provide evidence god wrote the bible (and not people).
You can't feel sorry for people being willfully ignorant
14:00 The thing with deliberately vague and "poetic" language is that you can kid yourself it means pretty much whatever you want it to mean. That doesn't mean it's divine revelation from god, just that the words were non-specific and malleable enough for you to be able to interpret them in a way that suits you, like a horoscope prediction.
I love how Aron rolls his eyes lmfao
I agree with your eye-roll when he said "I have a presentation for you"
At 6 minutes in I'm screaming at my screen. Oh boy, this is gonna be a tough one..
Love watching Aron Ra giving tough love to the religiounists.
As a physics PhD I can tell you he misunderstands 100% of the physics he mentions. He also claims science only puts names on things but doesn’t provide explanations, which is of course exactly backwards and a prime example of projection.
I keep coming back to this 🤣 Aaron is hilarious.
Another 'god of the gaps' rant.
Followed by 'The Blind Watchmaker'
Thank you so much, Aron Ra, for checking him so hard and letting him get away with nothing. He needs to change his platform name.
Again here's a smart person who has never been challenged on his bullshit. Aron knocked him down just by pointing out the fallacy on his presentations title.after that just another look at the trees personal incredulity rap
No, he has been challenged. He just says, no you're wrong. I speak from experience
"You've got a dog there right?"
"Yeah."
"Filthy animal."
Never take anyone seriously who avoids bacon and alcohol.
Well, I avoid alcohol except on special occasions, I'm klutzy enough sober, but no religious reason for it. Bacon is something I simply enjoy in moderation.
@@ritchie6162good man ritchie
So if you put a gas in a container it won't clump together? Try that in a spherical container with a radius of a couple of light years.
"OMG!!! If things were just the sliiiiiiiightest bit different, then... then things would be different, and we wouldn't exist... Therefore, god!!!"
Yes, an invisible, self-creating being with unlimited, blank-cheque magical powers, who communicates ONLY via an angel, who tells one certain man, who tells scribes, who writes a book, is surely the ONLY possible explanation for this profound conundrum. 10/10 flawless logicking.
Aron please more of this content.
A god wouldn't need to leave fingerprints, it could just put up a great big sign saying 'Here I am'.
Didn't know God has fingers.
The roll of the eyes when Ahmed says “presentation” ha!
This god is an engineer analogy is pointless. Engineers do things by following rules. God should be powerful enough to make anything work in any way that he wants.
Achmed's misunderstanding of how gases act only takes into account his misunderstanding of pressure at familiar temperatures. He ignores the aspect of temperature in space. For example, a gas cloud in interstellar space would probably behave more comparable to a gel as we know it.
The world doesn’t make sense WITH God.
Yeah, the universe has no obligation to make sense to us.
The world doesn't make sense without God (Allah)
@@f2e The world has no obligation to make sense to you.
Why would anything need to make sense to you?
@@jjphank If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then wouldn't it make more sense if things were LESS complex? The more complexity you add to a machine, the more places it can fail in. The simpler you can create something to fulfill the same task with the same efficiency, the better. And if he's omnipotent, he could make things work as simply or as complex as he wishes.
@@jjphank How did you figure out that there is a god who could make this? How can you demonstrate the truth of your claim? I mean, demonstrate, not argue into "existence"?
0:35 - what a face expression. “Oh f*** no, another presentation” 🤣
12:18
I think I second handedly lost brain cells
37:30
Ah yes a classic. Redefine language
Thx for your work again
Stay Free
Honestly I was ROLLING my eyes at just how fast the PAT list came out. Aron did a much better job then I would have in letting this guy talk.
"Ok I have a presentation for you. "
Aron - rolls his eyes so far back he can see the past.
It’s impossible to deny something I don’t know exists. Saying atheists deny god is a weak argument.
Agreed, how can anyone believe that there is a Common Ancestor to the wolf and dog, if there are only Assumptions being made by people who claim that Assumptions are Evidence ?
@@whoneverknow9588 the genetic makeup of the ancestors is written in the offspring. That’s not an assumption. That’s empirical evidence.
@@jjphank if your explanation derived from the bible is: God... you’ve explained nothing. You added questions.
@@Qzopr1
What are the Assumptions or Evidence for how DNA came into existence here on Earth ?
@@whoneverknow9588 I don’t mind assumptions. I care about evidence.
all this presentation by ahmed and the sun still sets in a muddy spring
The more I listen, the more ridiculous this guy sounds, like he’s DESPERATELY trying to convince everyone that he’s “right” WITHOUT VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE
I got bored 5 minutes in.
He doesnt need evidence he has faith and there is his problem
Can't believe I missed this.
If only god would just come out and say "here I am!" and stop being the king of hide and seek then we wouldn't have to suffer through this presentation.
@@xstatic-ow5mz I think he's just frustrated that this guy is going on a rant about chemistry and astrophysics or whatever the hell he's blabbering about and still hasn't proved a damn thing. He should be intelligent enough, with all of those degrees he has, to realize that none of that crap proves god. He is basically saying "Allah is leaving us breadcrumbs to follow like pigeons and it's up to us to follow the crumbs and he'll be at the end of the trail." All he has to do it SHOW UP! This is all a bunch of BS he's saying. Who gives a crap what the Quran says, just like who cares what the Bible says? He's teaching the Quran. IT'S NOT PROOF OF god.
@@xstatic-ow5mz oh shut up!
Aron, this person is simple minded, ignoring them is the best answer to their idiocy.
@@TheNumbaOneMiss God did show up in the form of Jesus Christ but was betrayed and crucified. After 3 days He was resurrected and spoke to a lot of people to prove to them he was telling the truth.
The evidence you ask for was given to us thousands of years ago. Is God supposed to do the same thing every generation so that we can all see it?
@@michaelj976 God is eternal, God is beyond time. God has unlimited power...
And you're telling me he can't just use that power to guarantee everyone knows he exists?
@@michaelj976 🙄🙄🙄
32:08 sura 29-20 "Say, "Travel through the land and observe how creation began.""
Sad, yet another theist with no good reason for their belief in gods. And you know that he is no different from the most intelligent theist out there. Put him with a theist who has read and studied all the other religions of the world and can explain all the "proofs" for god, they both will have the same reason for belief, that being by faith.
@@jjphank Energy and matter as well as time and existence expanded from an extremely hot state. We don't know what happened before that and it's pointless to speculate. I can say a magic can of spam created everything, it's meaningless without evidence.
The Bible proves nothing. That IS the claim. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, especially when the morals and practices are so barbaric they would be branded criminal to follow today.
I don't see your fascination with DNA either. Oh and it did write itself. That's why we have the diversity of life on Earth. DNA is not a code but in analogous to a code.
DNA is a sloppy, inaccurate mess full of copying errors, duplicates and mutations. If a God coded that then he's pretty dumb.
@@jjphank We know quite a lot about how the universe got started. In fact there is nothing in the universe that we do not have a good explanation for. And in all those explanations, there is no need for a god to be in involved in any way or form.
Now for your side, you have the following problems.
1. You have not shown that gods can actually exist.
2. That gods actually do exist.
3. That your god actually does exist.
4. That your god did anything to either make or maintain anything in the universe.
5. You have not shown what skills, tool and materials your god is supposed to have used to do anything in the universe.
So I think maybe you should sit down and shut up. At least until you can come up with an equal or better answer to these questions.
@@jjphank Seems like you have a problem understanding english.
I said anything you can point to in the universe, science has a pretty good idea as to how it came about. And in that science explanation, it does not require a god to do anything. Of course, if you doubt this, you can choose one thing and show where a god is needed to either make or maintain it. Now read the above again slowly and see if you can provide something only a god could do.
As for that "circular reasoning", I think you have no idea what it is, because there was nothing I said that begs the question. And if you try to quote me, it's best to use what I actually said. Use a cut and paste copy of my original text as that will help you not make a mistake like you did when you claimed I said “God doesn’t exist even if what JHankins says cannot be disproven ,it can’t be right, because God doesn’t exist!" I never said anything like that. Yet another fail I think.
Any god worthy of acknowledging in any way, would be willing and able to make himself known to everyone immediately, without compromising their free will. This is something that is possible under the power of being an omnipotent god.
Given that, the existence of atheists in the world prove that no such god exists. Or to put it another way, why is Paul allowed a Damascus road and not I? The only answer is that there was no god on that road and Paul was making it all up. Just like every other claim for gods.
“I promise I’m not dumb look at my masters degree in a completely different field than what we’re discussing”
"God gave us, in simple language, directions to his finger prints"
Why not just give man a simple road map to atomic cold fusion, solar farming, carbon free propulsion and transport, and cheap space exploration. Instead we get vaguaries about shit that can interpreted in a thousand different ways about magic powers, and essentially the argument from beauty reiterated until our mental faculties shut down and we stop giving a shit anymore.
Mr.Ra deserves free beer
I'm an electrical engineer, and when I checked the bible vs. evolution, evolution won.
20:56 Aron Ra begins his rebuttal : “This is the last time I’m going to platform you.” Ouch.
He thinks like an engineer that needs a manual instead of thinking like a biochemist. His argument is about chemistry and biology but he has no qualification to understand either because his domain requires programming and structures/manuals so he can not understand that biology and chemistry is what makes a macrophage attack a foreign cell NOT a code in its DNA telling it to do so.
This is fundamental to his not understanding how wrong his argument is. Bees do not have to be told how to harvest pollen and fertilize flowers, their biology does it for them just like himself as a human does not need to be told how to swallow or pee. Awful arguments
Some nebula are gas forming into a star.
"The world does not make sense"
Welcome to the club.
Its good to see people with vastly different views coming together to have a conversation. Instead of yelling and name calling each other.
A whole system of claims.A claim cannot shown to be true by a bunch of other claims that aren't shown to be proven. The fact that otherwise we suposedly cannot undrrstand this or that is of no relevance.
30:21 "Smoke state of the universe" Ladies and gentlemen, this is the state of your brain on religion. There wasn't a smoke state. The universe is not a container.
When I first heard that by islamic tradition the uncle of Muhammad's first (and rather dominant) wife had been a Christian and it was him who had set the idea into Muhammad's mind that he had been talking to angel Gabriel while sitting in his cave, I was like: Wow... that's pretty suspicious. Until then I had been under the impression that the connection between Muhammad and Christian doctrine was pretty far-fetched and wondered why he would use that as his foundation. It all made sense then.
Sounds to me like Muhammad and his wife searched for a way to unite people under them to gain wealth and power and good old uncle Waraqa knew a reliable trick to achieve that. Without him Islam might have looked completely different or wouldn't have existed at all. Or maybe it was even him and his niece who came up with the whole idea, while Muhammad was just their guinea pig.
Love Ahmed’s background, it’s so humble. Such an eloquent contrast. He has no clue what evidence means, therefore god. Free publicity for him.
I find it very sad that adults can't tell the difference between fairy tales and reality.
„i have a presentation“ - Aron rolls eyes. 😂