I am 22, I am a Muslim and I study sociology 3rd year, Rami you inspire me to want to do something with my degree towards representing Islam and unmasking the Islamophobes in society like you do so beautifully in this video, so good. Allahu Akbar
Your claim that atheists would not have any moral standards and would believe that "cutting down a tree morally is no different than cutting down a child". This is pure nonsense. Humans are social beings. We have morality engraved in our genes, we are born with empathy, the desire for cooperation, to be appreciated by our fellow beings (family, friends ...). We are "programmed" to take care of others, in particular children. If you would abandon a baby anywhere around people they would take care of it, try to protect it, feed it, find their family, no matter what religion, what society, what civilisation. There is no need for a divine order to tell people to take care of babies, we just do it because this is our very nature. Our brains have an area ("mirror neurons") that reflects the emotions and feelings of others. If somebody around us is sad our brain copies this emotion and we start to feel sad ourselves, and we will try to make the other person (and hence ourself) feel better. No divine law tells us to act this way, this is our human nature. Now the obvious question is: Why then there is still agression, violence, war ... between people? Why do we still hurt each other? Why is there seemingly endless war and conflict? The important point is that our social nature connects with people IN our group, but less with foreigners. We are in solidarity with the people we perceive as our group, and cautious towards outsiders. If we perceive outsiders as a danger we become hostile and aggressive to protect our group. This works best if outsiders are perceived as different, inferior or even non-human. A perfect example is National Socialism. This ideology strongly emphasized solidarity within the own group. Germans were requested to support each other, even to value the prosperity of the "Aryan race" higher than their own life, if necessary to sacrifice themselves on the battlefield for the glorious future of the community. Jews however were discribed as an inferior race, parasites, hostile ... as a dangerous threat. To protect the own group they have to be expelled or better eliminated. In the end people deeply indoctrinated by this poisonous ideology did all they could to follow this view - and murdered 6 million Jews. If we want to achieve peace among all humans we have to take a perspective that all humans are one large family, one clan. Any ideology that defines "WE" and a hostile "THEY" will create unrest, hatred, war. I - as an atheist - try to follow this view of a global community. My enemies are poisonous ideologies, not people. My favourite image is that we all live together in our common home, planet Earth, the only place in a vast universe where we can survive. We should take care of it, take care of each other, to survive and prosper together as a global community. Carl Sagan - a hero of my youth - found the best words when in 1990 Voyager 1 sent a final photograph of planet Earth from the outer parts of our solar system: ruclips.net/video/GO5FwsblpT8/видео.html
The claim that atheists think of cutting down human children as the same as cutting down a tree was not the point of this video. It was a simplistic strawman to show how ridiculous the atheist's point is by contrasting it with a strawman similar to the one the atheist made. Islam does not allow killing any innocent people or even the unnecessary burning down of trees in war. Richard claims that people can cite Islam as a reason to kill others which is simply false. On the other hand, atheism gives no moral ground against killing innocent people. Going by richard's own simplistic and primitive mindset, one could say that an athiest is the most likely person to hurt you because there's nothing holding them back from doing so as their only belief is none in a higher power, so they don't think there are any consequences to their actions should they avoid the law in this world or control a country and thus avoid applying the laws of their land when it's convenient for them. You're saying that it is dangerous for any ideology to put up a "we" and a "them". This is incredibly close-minded as you're not considering even the possibility that other ideologies might be correct. Also, looking at religion as simply a portrayal of an in-group and an out-group shows a severe lack of basic knowledge about religion. Religion is about the origins of life, death, the afterlife, and the purpose of life. You see all ideologies that don't support a global "we" as a poison which is an ideology that, itself, can lead to horrible injustice as you try to strip people of their right to believe in their religion and live moral lives in order to enforce your own ideals onto them. A world ruled by Islam is far more preferable to practically everyone in comparison to your hypothetical single-minded dictatorship as Islam does not force people into erasing their own beliefs. You might say you don't want to erase people's religions, but you yourself called ideologies (in this context clearly implying religions) "poisonous", and you obviously don't just keep a poison around in any living body, which in your world view is the entire global population, so your own ideology inherently wishes to erase this 'outgroup' of people poisoned by ideology. My point is that your ideology is inherently contradictory. I apologize if you think I'm straw-manning your ideology but I simply looked at the obvious implications of your language and it's realistic implementation. The reason why your ideology is inherently contradictory is quite simple: the foundations of your world view are flawed. You don't have any rational explanation for the purpose or origins of life. Any atheistic explanation for the world goes in circles. Through the principle of parsimony, it is clear that the best explanation for life and the existence of the universe is the presence of an omnipotent, all-powerful being who willingly created the world. Obviously, that is God Almighty. What's left is to find out how to connect to God, and with any good research, the answer is clearly revealed as being a muslim. Now, I used the principle of parismony to appeal to the atheist mindset of believing in science as if it's contradictory to religion when in reality it can go hand-in-hand with religion, especially with Islam. If you read the Qur'an with accurate translations and tafsir, you will see that Allah (God Almighty) has given mankind ample proof to become muslims. Also, because you believe that ideologies shouldn't make an "in-group" and "out-group", God describes the prophet, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), as a mercy to "mankind", not just muslims, because Islam is the ultimate truth for all living things.
@@lightfulcore Thank you for your elaborate reply to my comment, your tried to understand my thoughts, I appreciate that! Of course, you likely will not be surprised that I have my own view on a number of statements and arguments you brought forward: "Islam does not allow killing any innocent person." This is not special about Islam. No current religion does allow murder. But the key word in your statement is "innocent". Islam defines a number of people as guilty, therefore these people can or even must be killed. Your prophet himself allowed or ordered the killing of numerous people, e.g. all (reportedly 600-900) men of the Banu Qurayza were captivated after they had surrendered. Blasphemy or apostasy are seen as crimes that may result in capital punishment. E.g. Ruhollah Khomeini issued a Fatwa calling for the killing of Salman Rushdie. Rushdie is hiding from assasins since decades now and was recently stabbed by a Muslim extremist. "Atheism gives no moral ground against killing innocent people" This is formally correct. Not believing in any deity does not provide any moral guideline at all. But this does not imply that atheists would be immoral. As I pointed out humans have "built-in" moral standards. We are born with a desire to cooperate, an inhibition to kill others, strong feelings that motivate us to protect babies etc. Your argumentation even partly relies on these natural moral standards. You implicitely state that "Islam does not allow killing of innocent people, therefore Islam is good." This mean you inherently are convinced that murder is bad and judge Islam against this conviction. Islam is good because it is in line with your conviction, not the other way round. Psychological experiments have been done to test moral standards of people, and even babies show signs that they prefer fairness, cooperation and non-violence. "You don't have any rational explanation for the purpose or origins of life." Science is working on the origin of life and has made significant progress. Regarding the purpose of life there is no rational explanation in atheism or science, I agree with you. But so what, I can deifne a purpose for myself. And after all, what is the purpose of life according Islam? - getting access to paradise: This is very selfish, it is the like atheists who say "I want to maximize the pleasure in my life." The only difference is that the pleasure is expected in the afterlife instead before death. - praise Allah: Why would an almighty, all-knowing, eternal, deity even want to be praised by us tiny humans who are so incredibly inferior to this God? This does not make any sense to me, this is like if I would want the bacteria in my gut to praise me for feeding them. "Allah (God Almighty) has given mankind ample proof to become muslims." I have not found any proof so far. If you refer to the claimed miracles in the Quran, not a single one of those I have encountered meets any reasonable standards of science and logic. Instead there are a number of severe contradictions between Quran/Islam and science like creation of mankind/evolution or astronomical statements that are completely strange and wrong.
@@justanotherguy2824 Where is the morality gene? Show me proof. From an evolutionary perspective why would people care for the old or the sick if it goes against survival and reproduction? You mentioned an "us or them" reasoning for why wars and atrocities occur, are you suggesting that people have never killed or hurt others within their own group? And from a Islamic perspective, unity is at the core of our religion, our religion is thicker than blood, the Prophet, over 1400 years ago said, "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a White has no superiority over a Black nor a Black has any superiority over a White except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly." Islam calls every human being back to their original family under Adam and Eve, what other religion or ideology is calling for unity and doing it as successfully as Islam where majority Muslims are NOT Arab? Using your argument, Islam is a better fit for you since you to want to be part of the human family. Muslims are one people across time, Prophet Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) all Prophets of God and their followers were all part of the Muslim family. There are other reasons you should consider for the existence of God: How do you explain the hard problem of consciousness? What is your argument against intelligent design? Or about the cosmological argument?
With his old age and experiences, Richard Dawkins still wasn't able to attain the same knowledge as you. Even when he's a thousand times older than you, he still doesn't have anything to show for it. What a sad existence! I'm 22 years old and when I hear this old man speak it's so jarring....May Allah keep us steadfast! "Darkness upon darkness! If one stretches out their hand, they can hardly see it. And whoever Allah does not bless with light will have no light!" (surah an-noor v.40)
"Even when he's a thousand times older than you, he still doesn't have anything to show for it." Apart from international credibility Best selling books And being a Professor Apart from that... JR
@@jonnyrondo507 So something that has existed since conception is fake but a person who thinks they figured it out in one life time is real. Interesting take.
@@altonsafe Are you okay Alton? Who are you arguing with? If you're so weak, so terrible at arguing that you have to build a strawman, don't bother engaging. What has 'existed since conception'? What did I say was 'fake'? What have I figured out? I'M definitely real... And I'm proving it now. Try that with your God.😂 Or anyone's... You're not very good at this. Quit while you're behind 🤭 JR
Rami We want Arabic translation on the video. I do not understand English. Please open a translation channel or do a written translation on the video.😊
@@ramialkhaleel Rami Akhi could you please contact Jan the Revert? I think his experience as a new revert could be very useful and interesting to listen to, especially since he's from eastern Europe and islam is on the rise there. Please could you bring it up with your friends? You could make an episode on the 3 Muslims podcast. Here's his channel with all his socials attached: ruclips.net/user/liveWvk6K2XDRvg?feature=shared
You can’t have a start to infinity. If God is meant to be independent and infinite, he can’t have a start nor stop. We as humans belong in a dependent chain of existencez God is outside this chain of dependency. Also the chain of dependency would never begin to exist without an independent infinite “being” with creative capacity didn’t decide to start the chain. God always existed because there is no such thing as a start to infinity. If God had a start, he wouldn’t be infinite or independent. There’s your evidence, proof, whatever you like to call it. Just use your brain.
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j thats where dependency comes in. Anything that’s independent can harness infinity, anything thats dependent cannot harness infinity directly. When your independent of all dependent things, it would be a logical contradiction to say anything independent is dependent on a start. You can also have infinity with no finite constraints. Have you heard of limits in calculus and integration? As a approaches infinity, would be an example of an infinity where you start, and you end nowhere causing an infinity. But you can also have integrals with bounds of negative infinity to infinity. No start, no stop. Divergent kind of in both directions, it would be immeasurable. Let me know if i got the concept wrong, im 99.99% sure this is correct. God would have no start nor stop simply because he’s outside a dependent chain. The chain of infinite you said 1 to 2 and all real numbers between would have infinity would be conditional and dependent on the start and stop bounds, the bounds being 1 to 2 but infinity in between. In a way, this is within the scope of the dependent chain we finite dependent beings live in Since God is independent, this would inherently mean God is infinite in all directions with no bounds because he’s also independent of the dependent chain Let me know if i made sense.
I am 22, I am a Muslim and I study sociology 3rd year, Rami you inspire me to want to do something with my degree towards representing Islam and unmasking the Islamophobes in society like you do so beautifully in this video, so good. Allahu Akbar
Well-articulated and concise video. Great job
jazakallah khair brother
Your claim that atheists would not have any moral standards and would believe that "cutting down a tree morally is no different than cutting down a child".
This is pure nonsense. Humans are social beings. We have morality engraved in our genes, we are born with empathy, the desire for cooperation, to be appreciated by our fellow beings (family, friends ...). We are "programmed" to take care of others, in particular children.
If you would abandon a baby anywhere around people they would take care of it, try to protect it, feed it, find their family, no matter what religion, what society, what civilisation. There is no need for a divine order to tell people to take care of babies, we just do it because this is our very nature.
Our brains have an area ("mirror neurons") that reflects the emotions and feelings of others. If somebody around us is sad our brain copies this emotion and we start to feel sad ourselves, and we will try to make the other person (and hence ourself) feel better. No divine law tells us to act this way, this is our human nature.
Now the obvious question is:
Why then there is still agression, violence, war ... between people? Why do we still hurt each other? Why is there seemingly endless war and conflict?
The important point is that our social nature connects with people IN our group, but less with foreigners. We are in solidarity with the people we perceive as our group, and cautious towards outsiders. If we perceive outsiders as a danger we become hostile and aggressive to protect our group. This works best if outsiders are perceived as different, inferior or even non-human.
A perfect example is National Socialism. This ideology strongly emphasized solidarity within the own group. Germans were requested to support each other, even to value the prosperity of the "Aryan race" higher than their own life, if necessary to sacrifice themselves on the battlefield for the glorious future of the community.
Jews however were discribed as an inferior race, parasites, hostile ... as a dangerous threat. To protect the own group they have to be expelled or better eliminated. In the end people deeply indoctrinated by this poisonous ideology did all they could to follow this view - and murdered 6 million Jews.
If we want to achieve peace among all humans we have to take a perspective that all humans are one large family, one clan. Any ideology that defines "WE" and a hostile "THEY" will create unrest, hatred, war. I - as an atheist - try to follow this view of a global community. My enemies are poisonous ideologies, not people.
My favourite image is that we all live together in our common home, planet Earth, the only place in a vast universe where we can survive. We should take care of it, take care of each other, to survive and prosper together as a global community.
Carl Sagan - a hero of my youth - found the best words when in 1990 Voyager 1 sent a final photograph of planet Earth from the outer parts of our solar system:
ruclips.net/video/GO5FwsblpT8/видео.html
The claim that atheists think of cutting down human children as the same as cutting down a tree was not the point of this video. It was a simplistic strawman to show how ridiculous the atheist's point is by contrasting it with a strawman similar to the one the atheist made. Islam does not allow killing any innocent people or even the unnecessary burning down of trees in war. Richard claims that people can cite Islam as a reason to kill others which is simply false. On the other hand, atheism gives no moral ground against killing innocent people. Going by richard's own simplistic and primitive mindset, one could say that an athiest is the most likely person to hurt you because there's nothing holding them back from doing so as their only belief is none in a higher power, so they don't think there are any consequences to their actions should they avoid the law in this world or control a country and thus avoid applying the laws of their land when it's convenient for them.
You're saying that it is dangerous for any ideology to put up a "we" and a "them". This is incredibly close-minded as you're not considering even the possibility that other ideologies might be correct. Also, looking at religion as simply a portrayal of an in-group and an out-group shows a severe lack of basic knowledge about religion. Religion is about the origins of life, death, the afterlife, and the purpose of life. You see all ideologies that don't support a global "we" as a poison which is an ideology that, itself, can lead to horrible injustice as you try to strip people of their right to believe in their religion and live moral lives in order to enforce your own ideals onto them. A world ruled by Islam is far more preferable to practically everyone in comparison to your hypothetical single-minded dictatorship as Islam does not force people into erasing their own beliefs. You might say you don't want to erase people's religions, but you yourself called ideologies (in this context clearly implying religions) "poisonous", and you obviously don't just keep a poison around in any living body, which in your world view is the entire global population, so your own ideology inherently wishes to erase this 'outgroup' of people poisoned by ideology.
My point is that your ideology is inherently contradictory. I apologize if you think I'm straw-manning your ideology but I simply looked at the obvious implications of your language and it's realistic implementation. The reason why your ideology is inherently contradictory is quite simple: the foundations of your world view are flawed. You don't have any rational explanation for the purpose or origins of life. Any atheistic explanation for the world goes in circles. Through the principle of parsimony, it is clear that the best explanation for life and the existence of the universe is the presence of an omnipotent, all-powerful being who willingly created the world. Obviously, that is God Almighty. What's left is to find out how to connect to God, and with any good research, the answer is clearly revealed as being a muslim. Now, I used the principle of parismony to appeal to the atheist mindset of believing in science as if it's contradictory to religion when in reality it can go hand-in-hand with religion, especially with Islam. If you read the Qur'an with accurate translations and tafsir, you will see that Allah (God Almighty) has given mankind ample proof to become muslims. Also, because you believe that ideologies shouldn't make an "in-group" and "out-group", God describes the prophet, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), as a mercy to "mankind", not just muslims, because Islam is the ultimate truth for all living things.
@@lightfulcore Thank you for your elaborate reply to my comment, your tried to understand my thoughts, I appreciate that!
Of course, you likely will not be surprised that I have my own view on a number of statements and arguments you brought forward:
"Islam does not allow killing any innocent person."
This is not special about Islam. No current religion does allow murder. But the key word in your statement is "innocent". Islam defines a number of people as guilty, therefore these people can or even must be killed. Your prophet himself allowed or ordered the killing of numerous people, e.g. all (reportedly 600-900) men of the Banu Qurayza were captivated after they had surrendered.
Blasphemy or apostasy are seen as crimes that may result in capital punishment. E.g. Ruhollah Khomeini issued a Fatwa calling for the killing of Salman Rushdie. Rushdie is hiding from assasins since decades now and was recently stabbed by a Muslim extremist.
"Atheism gives no moral ground against killing innocent people"
This is formally correct. Not believing in any deity does not provide any moral guideline at all. But this does not imply that atheists would be immoral. As I pointed out humans have "built-in" moral standards. We are born with a desire to cooperate, an inhibition to kill others, strong feelings that motivate us to protect babies etc.
Your argumentation even partly relies on these natural moral standards. You implicitely state that "Islam does not allow killing of innocent people, therefore Islam is good." This mean you inherently are convinced that murder is bad and judge Islam against this conviction. Islam is good because it is in line with your conviction, not the other way round.
Psychological experiments have been done to test moral standards of people, and even babies show signs that they prefer fairness, cooperation and non-violence.
"You don't have any rational explanation for the purpose or origins of life."
Science is working on the origin of life and has made significant progress.
Regarding the purpose of life there is no rational explanation in atheism or science, I agree with you. But so what, I can deifne a purpose for myself. And after all, what is the purpose of life according Islam?
- getting access to paradise: This is very selfish, it is the like atheists who say "I want to maximize the pleasure in my life." The only difference is that the pleasure is expected in the afterlife instead before death.
- praise Allah: Why would an almighty, all-knowing, eternal, deity even want to be praised by us tiny humans who are so incredibly inferior to this God? This does not make any sense to me, this is like if I would want the bacteria in my gut to praise me for feeding them.
"Allah (God Almighty) has given mankind ample proof to become muslims."
I have not found any proof so far. If you refer to the claimed miracles in the Quran, not a single one of those I have encountered meets any reasonable standards of science and logic. Instead there are a number of severe contradictions between Quran/Islam and science like creation of mankind/evolution or astronomical statements that are completely strange and wrong.
@@justanotherguy2824 Where is the morality gene? Show me proof. From an evolutionary perspective why would people care for the old or the sick if it goes against survival and reproduction? You mentioned an "us or them" reasoning for why wars and atrocities occur, are you suggesting that people have never killed or hurt others within their own group? And from a Islamic perspective, unity is at the core of our religion, our religion is thicker than blood, the Prophet, over 1400 years ago said, "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a White has no superiority over a Black nor a Black has any superiority over a White except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly."
Islam calls every human being back to their original family under Adam and Eve, what other religion or ideology is calling for unity and doing it as successfully as Islam where majority Muslims are NOT Arab? Using your argument, Islam is a better fit for you since you to want to be part of the human family. Muslims are one people across time, Prophet Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) all Prophets of God and their followers were all part of the Muslim family.
There are other reasons you should consider for the existence of God: How do you explain the hard problem of consciousness? What is your argument against intelligent design? Or about the cosmological argument?
@@justanotherguy2824 yea we know too well the subjectivity of your moral standard...which in this case not a standard that we all should adhere to
@lightfulcore now with Gaza the world has woken up to Richard Dawkins moral compass and the fruits it bears. No arguments there.
Alhamdullilah.
Great video
With his old age and experiences, Richard Dawkins still wasn't able to attain the same knowledge as you. Even when he's a thousand times older than you, he still doesn't have anything to show for it. What a sad existence! I'm 22 years old and when I hear this old man speak it's so jarring....May Allah keep us steadfast!
"Darkness upon darkness! If one stretches out their hand, they can hardly see it. And whoever Allah does not bless with light will have no light!" (surah an-noor v.40)
SubhannAllah
"Even when he's a thousand times older than you, he still doesn't have anything to show for it."
Apart from international credibility
Best selling books
And being a Professor
Apart from that...
JR
@zaraki942
That's more than your boyfriend's got.
And of course you missed out the rest.
Coward
Do better
JR
Agreed. No moral code
He has a moral code.
It's just not one from a character in a book
@@jonnyrondo507 Make your own character? Real life rpg? Sounds fantastical.
@@altonsafe "Sounds fantastical."
Nah!
Religion has being doing it for millenia
@@jonnyrondo507 So something that has existed since conception is fake but a person who thinks they figured it out in one life time is real. Interesting take.
@@altonsafe
Are you okay Alton?
Who are you arguing with?
If you're so weak, so terrible at arguing that you have to build a strawman, don't bother engaging.
What has 'existed since conception'?
What did I say was 'fake'?
What have I figured out?
I'M definitely real...
And I'm proving it now.
Try that with your God.😂
Or anyone's...
You're not very good at this.
Quit while you're behind 🤭
JR
Rami We want Arabic translation on the video. I do not understand English. Please open a translation channel or do a written translation on the video.😊
In my opinion of course disbelievers fear believers 👆🏿
As a disbeliever you’re wrong. I pity sky daddy worshipers
@@stephentitus7137 it’s you who believe in magical daddy who pop up things in sky randomly lol
Richard Dawkins sounds ridiculous
Really?
Compared to who?
Why dont you give an example of where he's being 'ridiculous'
Cant wait for that💩
Dont run
Write
JR
Wow
Assalamualaikum Brother
love your videos, I'm a youtube algorithm expert do you need any service then let me know.
Yes pls dm me on IG
@@ramialkhaleel Rami Akhi could you please contact Jan the Revert? I think his experience as a new revert could be very useful and interesting to listen to, especially since he's from eastern Europe and islam is on the rise there. Please could you bring it up with your friends? You could make an episode on the 3 Muslims podcast.
Here's his channel with all his socials attached:
ruclips.net/user/liveWvk6K2XDRvg?feature=shared
Rami you are talking about a lot of nonsense, mixing religion and science.
“God always existed.” So you’re not going to provide any proof for that claim?
You can’t have a start to infinity. If God is meant to be independent and infinite, he can’t have a start nor stop. We as humans belong in a dependent chain of existencez God is outside this chain of dependency. Also the chain of dependency would never begin to exist without an independent infinite “being” with creative capacity didn’t decide to start the chain.
God always existed because there is no such thing as a start to infinity. If God had a start, he wouldn’t be infinite or independent.
There’s your evidence, proof, whatever you like to call it. Just use your brain.
...you can definitely start counting with the number 1.
You don’t understand infinity. There are an infinite number of real numbers between 1 and 2, and yet they start at 1 and end at 2
@user-gv8xf9ul5j well done. you just put a start, and even an end to infinity. cheers.
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j thats where dependency comes in. Anything that’s independent can harness infinity, anything thats dependent cannot harness infinity directly. When your independent of all dependent things, it would be a logical contradiction to say anything independent is dependent on a start. You can also have infinity with no finite constraints. Have you heard of limits in calculus and integration? As a approaches infinity, would be an example of an infinity where you start, and you end nowhere causing an infinity.
But you can also have integrals with bounds of negative infinity to infinity. No start, no stop. Divergent kind of in both directions, it would be immeasurable. Let me know if i got the concept wrong, im 99.99% sure this is correct.
God would have no start nor stop simply because he’s outside a dependent chain. The chain of infinite you said 1 to 2 and all real numbers between would have infinity would be conditional and dependent on the start and stop bounds, the bounds being 1 to 2 but infinity in between. In a way, this is within the scope of the dependent chain we finite dependent beings live in
Since God is independent, this would inherently mean God is infinite in all directions with no bounds because he’s also independent of the dependent chain
Let me know if i made sense.
Not athiesm but communism, hence you're right in your analysing process but the conclusion is wrong
Okay, we won't trust and atheist who presents logical and concise arguments. We will trust a person who believes in fairy tales. Got it.
"logical and concise" more like selectively blind and logically inconsistent.
"fairy tales" - you've clearly never read the Qur'an
believe mohamed the rapist, he is the truth and his stinky beard emits holiness