I hope you all enjoy the copy with the improved audio (and clarification subtitles where the audio couldn't be improved or the speakers couldn't be heard properly). While the debaters could hear eachother just fine and could engage in a clear debate, the stream to the audience wasn't good or clear in some places. So the audio was improved in this copy by removing all distortions and sound glitches (where possible), by inserting a separate back-up parallel recording of the debate that was made with another device. The original video can be found here for anyone interested in comparing the two: ruclips.net/video/vFI6VWrgEXA/видео.html
Hi I am a Christian and a regular on the MDD channel. I will say Abdullah had a great victory here, and he expressed his arguments in an articulate and respectful fashion. I give a lot of credit to Abdullah, he did a great job in this debate.
There are many differences between Islam and Christianity 1 The Qur'an is preserved and there is no distortion in it It is completely one book in China or America or anywhere We have the Qur’an dating back to the time of the Prophet in several countries, Turkey, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Cairo, etc. There is also at Bergham University in Britain It was tested on carbon, and it dates back to 50 years after the death of the prophet( Muhammad peace be upon him ) The Bible is constantly distorted and there are many different types and books for each type of Christian Catholic 76 books Protestant 66 books There is no need to mention the Mormons or the Christians who don't believed in Jesus to be a God Unitarian Christians . And none of them can be proven wrong or right, because the Bible 94% of the are from the ninth century 2 Your belief in the Trinity This idea came in the fourth century . The early Christians believed that Jesus was the messenger the Prophet , and the ancient and present Jews were waiting for the Messiah, the man, and not God. There is no Trinity in the Bible Or an idea of a trinity There was a John 5 7 that was omitted from all books because it "add distortion" in the 17th century Have you seen how the book that you claim is from the Lord is so simple and you are brainwashed, you just follow without testing 2 And we don't have original sin Every person is held accountable for what he did and has nothing to do with his father sins. Every child is born on instinct (فطرة) To be born a Muslim, but when he reaches puberty, he has the freedom to choose 3 When you say God is three, but not three, but one, this is against logic Who died on the cross, the three or Jesus? Does the God die? Do you love the Lord? If you were in the past, would you save God? If yes, will you disobey God? The correct answer is that you must kill the God to gian your eternal life . Is faith in human sacrifice the only way? Do the prophets who were before the human sacrifice , are they in the fire? I hope, my friend, that you are a skeptical man, not blind follower . If I made a mistake, I hope you will forgive me, I know that religious issues are sensitive
This was one of the best debates I've ever seen online, or anywhere else for that matter; with cogent, well thought out questions/answers and arguments, it was a credit to both parties that the level of quality of discussion in regard to the topic was so high. I think, on balance, Abdullah gave the better responses, but, Matt was sure no slouch either. Thoroughly enjoyed the video, and this one should have a Part 2 by public demand! Thanks for uploading.
This was an absolute massacre. I have seen clips where Matt Dillahunty seemed impressive and I honestly thought because he has debated contingency arguments so many times that he would come with some substance. He had absolutely nothing. I was actually shocked by the level of incompetence. Well done Br. Abdullah.
@@49perfectss the fact that matt and by the way you too did not get the argument for the claim of God's existence already confirms what i always thought u were suffering from " coginitive dessonance""
@@49perfectss No, he asserted that Abdullah had no way to prove anything instead of actually responding to the argument. Matt was advancing this naive incoherent logical positivism which claims that science is the only way we know the truth. Obviously, that's false. One way to know the truth is based on logical deduction, which is what Abdullah was doing.
Man this dillahunty guy was a masterclass in sleaze: - He doesn't prepare for a Muslim opponent, completely ignores everything said in Abdullah's opening and proceeds to give the same generic speech he uses on christians. Not only did he not prepare, he didn't have the mental agility to adapt on the fly in response to Abdullah's definition, and when this gets pointed out to him he tries the "EXCUSE ME SIR THIS IS NOT HOW DEBATES WORK, YOU CANNOT ATTACK MY OPENING STATEMENT, WHO TAUGHT YOU HOW TO DEBATE" sleight of hand. - Constantly scoffs, smirks, grunts and rolls his eyes. at least he didn't loudly yawn during the debate. - "excuse me I don't want to score cheap points" before trying to score a cheap point and further avoid the main argument. - cannot wait to leave, he can't just exit graciously he has to tell everyone he's grabbing dinner and he's too important for the Q&A. I know you're used to debating perfect gentlemen like Graham Oppy but your ultra soft approach may not be as effective vs some of the more malicious atheists.
It does become quite tiring to hear the same "arguments" for the existence of god repeated ad nauseum. Dillahunty has boiler plate responses for all the logical fallacies that theists engage in. Muslims are not unique, they are in fact, less refined when it comes to defending their religion, because it has enjoyed relative isolation for so long. Christianity has been hotly debated since Darwin and Bacon.
@@plantatheist5883 islam isn't like Christianity , so the claim that christian arguments are more refined than muslim arguments because Christianity has been under scrutiny in the west is false .
@@plantatheist5883 Well what are you arguing against? The divinity of the text? The contents? Its preservation? Its claims? Scientific claims? Contradictions(there is non btw)? The argument for God's existence? (not unique to Islam so don't think you mean this) Kind of hard to provide an argument when we don't know what you're refuting.
Great debate from Abdullah with a well known internet atheist. Like another comment said, this debate wasn’t advertised enough and I just became aware of it today.
CAN'T BELIEVE I'M JUST FINDING THIS DEBATE NOW!!!! And I'm well aware of both speakers and heavily look into this topic whenever I have the time. Wow, I'll enjoy this one that's for sure. Thank you Abdullah for uploading this.
I am disappointed that there was no announcement or advertisement of this debate. On the original video many atheists watched it and were claiming victory but theists especially muslims were unaware. Good job Abdullah. May Allah give you success in this life and the next. Ameen
I don't know how atheists can claim victory. Matt dillahunty best argument that you brought forward is that we are in a computer program. But when Abdullah Ali asked him well who made that program. Matt simply replied with that is irrelevant. You see atheists have to say it is irrelevant. Because they don't want to ask that question "why" anymore. Because if they do they will have to admit there is a. Force outside of this world. That is governing everything.
@@tommykiger1871 That's not what I said. I was referring to the fact that Muslims were unaware and many atheists watched it and most comments were from them.
@@hamzazulfi - Then blame the debater for not promoting it. That doesn't change that your criticism is still pointless and doesn't change how poorly the Muslim in this debate was.
Excellent debate Mr. Abdullah. A short word on evidences, all of mathematics and by extension, many of the foundational elements of modern society, are based on abstract, NON PHYSICAL, conceptual and logic/ reason based proofs to ascertain the truthfulness of any theorem, formula or solution.
Abdullah clearly won. Many atheists on the other video probably just went on to comment that Matt won. Anyone who is sincere and watches the video will realize abdullahs points were way stronger.
_" Anyone who is sincere and watches the video will realize abdullahs points were way stronger."_ No. At no point did he show any evidence for his god, which was the point of the debate. Pointing to an infinite regress isn't evidence for a god ...and it certainly isn't evidence for his particularly god.
@@markh1011 denying God leads to infinite regress. It's not even an evidence; it's a proof for God. But if you want to believe an infinite regress, that's your choice.
@@rezacny _"denying God leads to infinite regress"_ Not necessarily... the universe could be eternal. Our universe could be occupy part of a larger eternal cosmos. If your god can be eternal and require no creator ...and that isn't an infinite regress then the universe can. _"It's not even an evidence; it's a proof for God."_ It's neither. It's merely an assertion. 'An infinite regress would be a paradox therefore god.' It's a baseless assertion and a non sequitur. _"But if you want to believe an infinite regress, that's your choice."_ You appear to because you believe in an eternal god. But hey that's your choice. 😉 But that was a silly deflection from you. The problem remains... no evidence... no proof was provided for a god ... let alone the god Abdullah worships. So he failed in the debate.
At no point did any acual evidence be supplied for a actual god, or gods. A question, If I told you I was the true god would you believe me?. if not, why not.
@@markh1011 "evidence" "particular god" "a god" let me just stop you there my guy. Do you know what evidence is? Furthermore, are you aware that evidence can exist for mutually exclusive claims simultaneously? "What's God's name" is not an argument and is effectively the argument that you're making.
Expert warns of impending genocide in India. Gregory Stanton, the founder and director of Genocide Watch, said during a US congressional briefing there were early “signs and processes” of genocide in the Indian state of Assam and Indian-administered Kashmir. “We are warning that genocide could very well happen in India,” Stanton said, speaking on behalf of the non-governmental organisation he launched in 1999 to predict, prevent, stop and seek accountability for the crime. please make video on this one and spread awarness. It is really bad in india and it got worse in last 10 years and it is keep getting worse banning adhan, banning hijab, banned meat.
Summary, Abdulla: here's a rational argument Matt: waffle and not tackle the premises of the arguments. It's clear that even Matt was able to see God then hel still deny him for some emotional reason
If something cannot come out of nothing, then what did God/Allah come from, since he can't have come out of nothing? This means he came from something, what created Allah/God, what created the creator of God/Allah? This implies a infite regression. I'm really confused here.
@@Ruben-cs6we theres many youtube videos on the contingency argument or kalam cosmological argument and its variations have a look, especially from the Muslim perspective and it should clarify for you
@@Ruben-cs6we to assume that sth must have a creator i.e depending on sth is a self contradictory cuz u can’t have infinite regression of contingencies. So to solve this case it must stop at one point where this doesn’t depend on anything. Otherwise if it does u will just go back to the same illogical argument (infinite regression of dependencies)
two key moments in the debate that I found fascinating: Dillahunty's opening statement: "there is no Nobel prize for religion" really betrays his shaky foundation that atheism = rigid, unbiased science and religion = anti science which is so ridiculously historically false I'm surprised Abdullah let it slide. I wish he replied "well there's no Nobel for atheism either" and just owned him then and there. 46:00 Dillahunty unintentionally refutes his entire worldview and agrees with Abdullah with his Conway's way of life example.
I actually was going to say, Nobel prizes are only for new discoveries, not for already well known obvious answers, like God being the Creator of the Universe. But alas I didn't have the time and had to prioritise other more important topics.
@@AbdullahalAndalusi or it could be that he would have pinned you on your definition of religion and the separation of dogma. It is easy to say kafir to those outside one's group, but you already open yourself to enough attacks from within with this conversation. Thank you for this, and keep that exodus going. We will be happy to continue in welcoming new members to the common ground.
Should've responded "that's why there are Templeton Prizes" I have seen very few atheists deal with their shoddy epistemology. They do far more hand-waving than the theist in that regard because the theist at least will acknowledge and contend with the issues put against their worldview. Atheists don't even acknowledge theirs.
Uhh no he didn’t. Matt’s point was that it’s possible for a creator to come about entirely by chance. He didn’t say that is what actually happened. He only said it’s possible for an infinite regress to NOT be a god but could instead be a multiverse.
to be fair ( even atheists think this too ) Matt is a horrible at debating and uses outdated arguments & logical fallacies. So him debating Mr.Abdullah is unfair 🤣
Matt was annoyingly ignorant throughout the debate. He kept repeating "we don't have enough evidence" like a parrot without responding to any of the actual arguments that Abdulla brought. Honestly I don't know how he was able to remain calm and explain the arguments over and over again.
Atheism is listening to thousands of different god stories from various theists and constantly telling them "you go ahead and believe in whatever that works for you, just leave me out of it and don't impose any of it onto others".
@@StepnieW you do realise that empiricism isnt the only type of proof right? And if you’re saying he is wrong, then how? How is he wrong when he proved the only explanation is God and disproved every other “possibility”
usually, Matt Dillahunty uses arguments against christians and his supporters hail them as great victory, but Mr. Al Andalusi destroyed Dillahunty. WOW!!!
I feel sad for anyone watching these debates to simply cheer for the side they ALREADY agree with. It's much more liberating to watch with an open mind and not concern oneself with who "won" or who "lost". We are all searching for truth, there is no winner or loser. Only people with stronger and weaker arguments
The question is dumb. Back in the day they’d laugh at an “atheist” who asks it. You’re the evidence. That fact that you exist and are breathing, thinking, experiencing the world within your consciousness.
1:44:40 After the answers of Abdullah and Matt I would have asked in return: What would count for you [atheits] as evidence for God? (I get the impression that nothing qualifies for them as sufficient, as "there could be another possibility we don't know about yet")
Hi, obviously there is no answer that qualifies for every atheist. I see myself as atheist, meaning that I am not convinced that there are gods. So I cannot answer for all "atheists" in general, only for myself. For me the answer is very easy - I'd need the exact same amount of evidence that I'd expect for any claim before believing in it. For example I do not believe that Harry Potter and the magical society described in the Books is real and I think we can agree on that. There are thousands of things, objects, places and descriptions of things in the Books that are real and are used to make the story more believable - and could be considered "evidence". However in case of Harry Potter we agree that the author just put real parts in and mixed them with fiction in order to make for a more believable story. It is not correct to say something like "see railways exist, and railways are used to get magical students to Hogwarts. That is evidence for the claim that the magical society exists". This is only evidence so far in that, if railways didn't exist it would be counter evidence. I hope the analogy - crude as it may be - comes across. In that sense let me ask you: what, for you personally, would qualify as sufficient evidence to believe that the world of Harry Potter is real. Try to really think about it and be honest - and consider all the technologies that could be used to trick you. Can you come up with something, some test or demonstration - you know "evidence" that would 100% convince you that the wizards world is real? Does your religion give you that kind of evidence? Try to really think about it, because this is the kind of evidence I will ask for if you try to convince me that the story and magic in your book is real.
@@marwilbow A God that doesn't care?? What Matt did in this discussion was basically denying the argument presented, always falling back to the claim "there might be another possibility, we don't know about yet".. This is essencially an "argument from ignorance". Atheists have claimed that theist construct their belief in God based on ignorance ie. "God of the gaps". What we have seen in this discussion is an "atheism of the gaps". What Abdullah provided was a positiv argument about God, based on an exhaustive examination of all possibilities... Well, after that I think it's the other way around: you don't care about God! When an argument like this is presented to you on a silver plate and you don't take it.. maybe an emotional struggle with God can explain such behaviour. Sorry for my rant, I'm just a bit baffled by your comment :)
I don’t think that Matt prepared himself for this debate. His idea that infinite regression is not a problem to him is “odd” to say the least. Abdullah a full 10 and Matt an infinitely regressive 0 which he should not have a problem with 😂.
You did well, Abdullah. Just so I understand you, you are saying that the Universe cannot be the necessary being because 1) It is conceivably divisible 2) It does not have intention Is that correct?
@@plantatheist5883 Well, I think Abdullah (channel owner) would be a better person to answer but if I understand this correctly then a necessary being must have intention. This is because there is a point when it (necessary being) started to create this universe (space, energy, matter and time). Before that it had not created this universe. What led to this transition? Intention. Could the universe simply be infinite in the past? That would mean that we still need to go through infinite points in time to get where we are. That means we currently should not be existing! I believe this is Abdullah's position and it does appear to make sense.
@@DrKildem "What led to this transition? Intention." Or it was just a set of circumstances that brought about the creation. You also still have not explained how "god" came to be. "Could the universe simply be infinite in the past? That would mean that we still need to go through infinite points in time to get where we are. That means we currently should not be existing! " Using the contracting and expanding theory of the universe we can explain this dilemma. If the universe has a "starting point" in the big bang, expands into infinity, slows down, stops and then retracts back into itself and then has another big bang etc. ad infinitum - we get an infinite universe that does not contain infinite stretches of time. Time is not a line upon which things need to travel. Time is just a human concept to make sense of cause and effect. It does not exist as a tangible entity. "Infinite time" is illogical, not because of infinity, but because of time. If the universe began then "time" began with the universe and there was no "time" within which "god" could have created the universe. If the universe is infinite then it stands to reason that time is contained within that infinity. In either case, w do not need god to create the universe.
@@plantatheist5883 The universe is continually expanding and contracting? Have we even seen a contracting universe? What does that even look like? In any case if we exist in the, let us say, 100th expansion (100th big bang) then there were 99 in which we did not exist. Fine. But if there were infinite expansions then are we not at the same problem? Namely, there had to have been infinite expansions before our one. No?
I listened/watched this debate twice, it seemed that there's a disagreement on the point of infinite regress and its validity in arguing for god. Could there be another video (whether with or without Matt) on this specific topic (i.e., the infinite regress)? Thanks!
Went as i predicted it, Matt will acknowledge the infinite regress and will agree that something would need to act as a first cause but then Matt and other athiests will say that, its too early to rule out other options And when asked about other options, matt/atheists.will say, we haven't discovered them yet so we don't know 🤷🏾♂️ Then you ask matt/atheist then how do you know there are other options if we havent discovered them, then the athiest will ask, how do you NOT know there are.other.options 😅 And it will go in circles 😅 So basically believers are currently using the best possible explanation while atheists are FAITHFULLY waiting for a new option 😅 Think of a judge, they rule out all possible outcomes depending on evidence and then make a judgement based in that current situation. This is what believers are doing, we have weighed up the information amd we can justify our belief UNTIL proven otherwise 🤷🏾♂️
Matt was decent enough and did not pose the question "which god?". If Abdullah had tried to defend the bs in the Quran, he would have looked incredibly stupid.
@@tranium67 Here's one example of bs. Borrow a fictional "event" from another religion and then get confused about the climax. Was Noah's son drowned? All of Noah's family survived ( 21:76 ) -Noah's son drowned ( --4:15-- )- Noah's son drowned ( 11:42-43 ) Edit: my bad for quoting the wrong verse about Noah's son drowning. I have corrected it now. Thank you ben green. Since we're on verse 4:15 let's just identify yet another bs. What is punishment for adultery? 100 lashes for both the man & woman ( 24:2 ) Confinement (Quran 4:15 ) Grant pardon (Quran 4:16 ) Stoning to death (Bukhari 8:816 )
@@bengreen171 41: 9-12 LoL, I can see your ignorance, do you even know which time reference it is taking for, when it is saying 2 days and 4 days? Not earth for sure, how can it reference to Earth's time when it was non existent during creation of it? Do you not use analytical skills of your brain?
At 1:08:30, the arrow example. I seen this question posited towards either you or Hijab. I think at oxford. I think Matt is conflating the idea of infinity of quantity rather then quality i believe was the answer before. So between the arrow and the target is a fixed number, everything in between is subjective measurements. This is how I understand it. Allah knows best. Thank you for the work Ustadth Abdullah
At about a minute later about space and time, I personally conclude that I don’t know and i am comfortable that we won’t know 100% of Allah swt in this reality at least. Part of the Unseen from what i conclude. We know for sure what He swt revealed to us. Idk if space and time and presence of Allah swt was directly mentioned other then being “above all that exists” which is good enough for me because of all the interpretations you get from that saying. Allah knows best
Debating with atheists is like arguing for colour of orange is orange, atheists will come along and tell you it's actually green; and not only that they'll start describing apple in that process, moreover, they'll accuse you of not addressing their position, or that you don't know how to argue. Lmao!
This is where Matt Dillahunty dug his own grave 44:19. It's funny cause he was taking about algorithm that generates infinite amount of generators or something but he forgot the question that where did that specific algorithm started this process came from? He acts like he is a genius but grievously he is not.
matt talks about an algorithm then when challenged by abdullah against his positions tells him what is a program matt: it does not matter loooooooooool
@@bengreen171 abdullah answered that But it is easy Matt wanna make the claim that by chance the algorithm happened to "create" new stuff But in reality the algorithm was programmed by an intelligent person who did that So that analogy is totally against him 😉😉😉 Do not challenge me and make presuppositions So is your bet wrong?
@@bengreen171 another mistake in the analogt that abdullah is talking about the first start So u starting with an algorithm is a strawman That is a bonus for you So how much i care 😎😎😎
@@bengreen171 and was the program done intentionally or not? Yes otherwise it will be a contradiction So i am gonna still laugh So again missing the point We are talking about the absolute start So your anogy is a strawman
@@bengreen171 but the conway game only shows from simplicity we can have complexity You are interpreting it as if this means non intentionality U have to prove it
@@bengreen171 and that is why he asked him what is a programm It is a set of rules that will produce something So it ia no unintentional It was designed by a designer to do a task Which means it is not random See where the laugh is
اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَىٰ سَيِّدِنَا مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَىٰ آلِهِ وَصَحْبِهِ وَسَلِّمْ Allāhumma ṣalli ʿalā Sayyidinā Muḥammadin wa ʿalā ālihi wa ṣaḥbihi wa sallim O Allah, send prayers and peace upon Muhammad and upon his Family and Companions.
Please Abdullah show these people how silly their thought process is by transferring it to real life. Imagine one these atheists using their logic in a murder investigation: "well this guy has 10 bullet wounds from different guns in the back of his head, but I have not seen a shooter so we have no reason to suspect one"
Athiests would use deductive reasoning to prove that their ancestors were monkeys, despite having fundamental missing pieces in the theory But in order to prove the existence of a Creator by analyzing a creation, they need to actually see the Creator and thats only how they would be convinced
_"well this guy has 10 bullet wounds from different guns in the back of his head, but I have not seen a shooter so we have no reason to suspect one"_ This is a laughably bad analogy.
@@markh1011 The fact they can't see it's bad is the most worrying thing. Just in case they read this comment and would like to understand where that analogy falters: you're using an example of something we know to be caused/created by someone (the bullet wounds), so we know that somebody did it without witnessing the shooting because we have evidence of what bullet wounds look like and what causes them. You're comparing to something that we don't know to be created or caused (the universe). Have you ever seen an example of another universe being created before? It's just typical watchmaker analogy rubbish.
I love how almost every debate mat has with a religious person starts with then saying his opening statement didnt rebutt anything from their opening statement
🤣🤣 Matt didn't even noticed that the argument he is using actually helps us, here is how: (1)that game of life example he gave only shows that something complex can come out of/created by something far more simpler which is what we believe i.e God relatively simple entity than the universe creating the universe (2) destroys the athiest argument that shouldn't God requires cause more than us because he must be far more complex bcz he created us.
@@whitewolf5762 you said simple things/being causes more complex things/being into existence and i answered you by asking a rhetorical question I am wondering what you understood from my previous comment to have such reaction
@@32Eratosthene51 u said "You said simple thing/beings causes more complex things" What where did I say that???? What I actually said was that simple things CAN cause complex things as the game of life example of Matt showed, i hope u will soon learn what CAN means and stop being a simpleton atheist Note: Btw if u have any real criticism of what I said in that comment feel free to share and this time do quote me word for word
@@whitewolf5762 no nothing i misread and misunderstood your comment thanks for correcting me 🙂 But just a correction. Your second point isnt an atheist argument but the conclusion of an argument for the existence of God which atheist pointed out
Actually debate conceded at 49:48 I dont get it, are both sides discussing in favour of God's existance? Is this even a debate. Because Matt is continuously bringing up analogies that can actually be used as a proof for God's existance. Zeno's paradox, the computer game, impossibility of movement. etc.😂
BarakAllahu Feek Mufti. Everyone donate to the hungry, orphans, and widows!! Ramadan is almost over and Laylatul Al-Qadr can occur for us!! May Allah Ar-Razzaq guide us all on the righteous path of Haqq. AAMEEN!☪️☝🏽😭
Lol at 1:12:47 x) the irony xD. Fitrah speaking or past experience, i think both tbh. As if he understood through fitrah before and that saying resonated b4. Then when distress came, the fitrah jumped. Just like how Allah says when someone (disbeliever i believe) on a ship during storm middle of ocean about to sink, they call out to Allah. That to me is the Fitrah
PS. His explanation of the universe imo does not seem consistent or defined. At least that’s what i got. Using words like “tend” does not seem very accurate to a definition of limits or something like that
What do generators in conways game of life have to do with anything? That game is strictly deterministic, so these generators Matt speaks about are the exact "caused" processes that Abdullah was referring to earlier, and not the necessary existence (from the perspective of the gliders?) that Matt seems to be implying they are?
Abdullah, your case for a sustainer of movement and the impossibility of crossing an infinite number of points between space points, is just a "god of the gaps" in the area of quantum mechanics and the higgs field. You, me, and every other person on the planet does not know enough about the fundamentals of the universe and its composition in order to make claims about what is actually happening. One thing that I think you may be overlooking, is that matter and energy are interchangeable. From our perspective, matter takes a position in space and moves through time to another location. But the quantum world does not work like this. Something that can help is researching the higgs field. The higgs field is what gives mass to other fundamental particles, like quarks and electrons. Particles move through the higgs field and, therefore space time, without moving from point to point in the way that at we observe matter move through space. The bottom line is, we simply do not know enough about the fundamental nature of reality, and just like from countless other examples throughout history, you are positing god as a solution to something we observe in reality, without any demonstration and only with your ignorance to exactly what is actually happening. One day, just like with everything else, we may discover exactly how these mechanisms work and what explains all of this, but until then the only honest answer is "we don't know", and in this case, we actually have an idea about how to explain this phenomenon. Quantum mechanics (and I am absolutely not an expert) is a new and mysterious field. It is often described as "spooky" because things happen in the quantum world that from our level of reality makes no sense at all or seems impossible, and yet it happens. All that means is that we need better explanations and evidence to understand what is happening, and to posit an answer without that kind of evidence (mathematics, physics, equations, observable data and repeatable results [like how we discovered the higgs boson]) is dishonest, unscientific, and a god of the gaps fallacy.
I like the way Abdullah answered APs question while ignoring wether to debate him or not. Abdullah doesn't debate trolls. Maybe AP should learn from Mr Dilahunty
If anyone thinks Apuss has the mental ability to debate Abdullah then he needs therapy. Guy got rinsed on the Thought Adventure Podcast when they discussed the Contingency Argument with him.
Regarding inference in science, you can demonstrate from a scientific paradigm, "gravity" cannot be seen, smelled, heared or touched but you do believe that gravity explains that if an object is dropped then it would ultimately fall and you inferred a NAME to this. He is very contradicting himself.
Here is an option that i don't see a contradiction in, and i would love for Abdullah or anyone else to show me: - the universe has always existed, but without changing and without shaps or forms. And without a cause it bagun to change into forms. I know it sounds very weird, but the question is if there is a prove, and if thre is i would love to see it, that this option is contradictory/not probable 🙏
The universe is defined by space (i.e. size). So ff the universe always existed but had no shape or form and then it changed into having shape and forms (this is basically saying it had 0 size and then had size), that basically means it was nothing and from this nothing it became something. That's a contradiction.
@@AbdullahalAndalusi thanks but i don't understand where is the contradiction in a universe that as mat said, have smallest particlase physicaly. The fact that you can divide something in your mind doesn't mean you can do it in reality, and therefor this contradiction is maybe just in your mind. And, i think you have a contradiction in your world view because if the universe isn't made of smallest particlase with size - than it can't have size because 0+ 0 = 0, i just don't see how god solves this. Thanks for your help 🙏
I think the premise for the debate itself was a bit problematic. What defines "GOOD EVIDENCE". For almost all atheists, evidence has to come out of methodological naturalism. But they don't explain why that is the yardstick and who made it the yardstick. Since there are multitudes of truths for which one can't have the kind of evidence that methodological naturalism is aimed to provide. What 'good evidence' aside from testimony can you provide that your great great great great great grandfather existed ? What ' good evidence is there that other minds exist? What 'good evidence' can provide that you feel pain, love, and hatred? If the only yardstick for believable knowledge is methodological naturalism and just be consistent and accept that you cannot know for sure that your consciousness, rational faculties exists and you cannot know that other minds exist. So the logical outcome for that line of thinking is that you don't know anything for certain , hence just the fact he logged into his computer to debate Abdullah makes him inconsistent with his own beliefs- sicne what Good evidence can he provide that his own mind exists to begin with?
Its crazy how science accepts a theory as it stands now until someone comes along to disprove it and a new theory(hypothesis) is put forward then they go along with that until new evidence is found again. However because there is no evidence other than the ones put forward through religious books, teachings and historical events and science is unable to disprove religion is unwilling to accept it a theory.
Serious question here, I understand the point Abdullah is making and it broadened my understanding of religion. Yet I don't understand this: If something cannot come out of nothing, then what did God/Allah come from, since he can't have come out of nothing? This means he came from something, what created Allah/God, what created the creator of God/Allah? This implies a infinite regression. I'm really confused here, please explain.
If we say that there is something created GOD , we may ask who created who created God, and so on ,and this leads to an infinite regress, which is mentally impossible. It remains only to say that it is necessary to reason that God is eternal beyond the boundaries of time and space, And this doesn't lead to infinite regression, I hope the point is clear .
@@skeptic_Todd If your problem is with the term (God), do not call it (God) if you want, usually they call it in Islamic theological books the term (maker) or (the first cause), is your problem only in the word (God)?? What is your logical (not verbal) objection to what I said??
13:36 - Does Dillanhunty understand the nature of will in human beings. Just because someone can rationalise something doesn’t necessite they will accept it. There is an emotional aspect to humanity that blatantly obvious.
@Marwan abdel moneim Perhaps our universe creation was unintentional. Perhaps it was a follow on effect of something else. Perhaps it happened totally naturally without any mind being involved at all. If you go back far enough it would have seemed impossible that the earth and stars could have been created without intention. It would have seemed absurd to even suggest it. But we now know that there are natural processes that create planets and stars. No magical beings need to be involved.
@Marwan abdel moneim _"it is strange to say that God would create the universe without an intention"_ That's still possible. _" And I believe that what you just described is a "belief"_ No it isn't. I'm not making a claim. _"Why there is a universe in the first place?"_ No one knows. Why is your god here in the first place? _"Who decided the laws of physics that would determine"_ Your question presupposes a "who". _" That "natural process" happens because of the existence of certain phenomenons that we have no idea why they exist, like mutations, no mutations, no evolution. "_ .....and? _"So, why do they exist in the first place?"_ Mostly copying errors. The type of thing you would expect in a universe not created by an omnipotent, omniscient being. _"How something could come from nothing? 2- "_ That's your claim not mine. _"How does chemistry turn into biology?"_ People are still trying to work that out. A lot of progress has been made but we don't have the answer yet. Is that a problem? Should we be omnipotent in 2022? _"How did we get consciousness?, Are those gaps?"_ Yep. _"Anyway, these discussions never go anywhere"_ I don't know if this qualifies as a discussion yet. You just sprayed a range of questions, as if questions are somehow an argument.
I've yet to see anyone present verified evidence for any gods, feelings, faith, and beliefs, are not evidence. words written in ancient texts are not evidence because whoever wrote those words are basing their writings on feelings, faith, and beliefs. So saying that, can anyone please show me just a single piece of actual evidence that undeniably proves the existence of any god/gods.
@@nurdiinnn3951 I did, and not at any point was actual evidence put forward that is undeniable proof of a god. just opinions, sorry but opinions don't equate to truth, only the truth does.
@@FlammablePunch What do I consider evidence?.. Well any really, I don't consider fitting in a "God" just because you don't acually know something. Feelings, faith, and beliefs aren't evidence for anything without actually backing up that claim, and so far there's been ZERO evidence for any gods.
Matt Dillahunty is great in pointing out societal ills and fallacies in each religion. But then, we all are --- in every religion except our own. So Matt is just an expert in one more religion than us. But when it comes to debating the existence of this minimal (possibly deistic) God, he's hopeless. When told "something can't come from nothing", he asks "how can you be sure?". If he's skeptical to that degree, then his mind is made up. Nothing can change him. His often used sentences -- "I am not convinced", "you haven't demonstrated blah blah" are the dumbest answers to "something can't come from nothing". To what other avenue in life does he bring this skepticism?
@@fibonacimike4110 :) :) The same number of times I've looked for an integer between 5 and 6, hoping to win the Fields medal. The same number of times I've looked north of the north pole, hoping to rival Jacques Cousteau. Psst: No number of times will suffice... problem of induction.
I hear theists say constantly "Something cannot come from nothing", yet will claim their god did exactly that when you follow up with, "If a creation demands a creator, who created your god?". And that's where they get caught in a loop of their own making. There's about 3,000 known gods in the world, and every believer in those gods claim that their god is the true god. People can't even prove that there's even one god, let alone then proving that the god they believe is the true god. You simply can't all be right, and who's to say YOU are right and THEY are wrong. Every religion claims to have proof of their god/gods, yet not a single one of them have demonstrated evidence for that gods existence, not one.
@@theunclethetwo3038 _"There has to have been one, the source from which all else came"_ Even if that were true.... and we don't know that it is.... but even if it were true, when you claim "That is God, the Creator," you are making a very large claim with no real support behind it at all.
@@theunclethetwo3038 No, a god didn't describe his/her beginning in the Qur'ran, a human did 1,400 years ago, a text written in the bronze age. There's ZERO evidence that a god said anything within ANY religious texts. Hindus have older texts than the Que'ran and they claim their gods say something completely different from what the Qur'ran (or the Bible) says. So there's already a conflict as to what is written about the beginning of gods. How do you go about sorting out which is true, and what isn't?. Why should I care about what ancient texts written by humans say?, it's just their opinions based on no evidence. The Qu'ran is just as flawed as any other religious texts written by humans.
@@asraabdulahi956 _", that necessary being, must have, such as a will. "_ Actually you don't know that there is a being. If there was a being you don't know that it had a will. These are just baseless assertions. Then you take another leap and claim that this being with the will is the particular god you like. You are taking all these leaps when none of it is supported.
@@asraabdulahi956 And YOUR belief is no different from THEIR belief. While you believe there is only one true creator some believe there;s multiple creators. YOU cannot prove your claim, just as they cannot prove theirs. You all get your first impressions of a god from rligious texts, a man made construct. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc etc all have different religious texts telling the story of creation. Again, you can't all be right.
@@powerdavid6235 "He is One only without a second." [Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1] "Of Him there are neither parents nor lord." [Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9] "There is no likeness of Him." [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3 The following verses from the Upanishad allude to the inability of man to imagine God in a particular form: "His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye." [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20] "There is no image of Him." [Yajurveda 32:3] "He is bodyless and pure." [Yajurveda 40:8] "They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements" (Air, Water, Fire, etc.). "They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti." [Yajurveda 40:9] Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol, etc. "O friends, do not worship anybody but Him, the Divine One. Praise Him alone." [Rigveda 8:1:1] The Brahma Sutra of Hinduism is: "Ekam Brahm, dvitiya naste neh na naste kinchan" "There is only one God, not the second; not at all, not at all, not in the least bit." "Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures." [Bhagavad Gita 7:20]
Abdullah’s entire argument summed up in one sentence: There is so much we don’t know, therefor God. That’s it, that’s his entire argument, he just added a shit ton of fluff. But that’s the argument. If you all think that’s a good argument… good for you I guess.
Thats not what he says. He says, that no other explanation is rational and that they all lead to contradictions and absurdities, except for god, therefore the best explanation is god. Your comprehension skills are laughable lol.
Abdullah Al Andalusian: This, that, that's how = Good argument for God Matt: No, not a good argument James Kunz: Let them argue, I'm making dinner rolls and porridge on their pointless debate, I win either way 😎
( Do Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? ) Quran 2:62 '' Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians->ANYAllah< Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques ) Quran 22:40 [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, " Our Lord is God " And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might. Note: Why did Allah protected Churches and Synagogues if they worship false Allah ? ( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? ) Quran 5 48 ''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation.( ie single religion ) But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you (ie Scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you '' >DISPUTE verb < not noun like other religions Islam mean "submission" to God ( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the >MUSLIM< and the Non-Muslims but total "submission" to God ) Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim "submit" to the God? Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work. Note: If you obeyed all the ABOVE Allah-God's moral laws "YOU" submitted to God.( ie Islam mean "submission" to God ) The only people who will enter Paradise those who '' Submitted to God '' ( ie by good deeds ) God does NOT accept your religion of birth but only ''Your Total'' Submission to Him. ( God Allows Interfaith Marriages And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa ) Quran 5:5 ''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers (ie Muslim ) and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless and he in the Hereafter will be among the losers.'' Note: > Only < Islam allows interfaith marriages (>14 hundredsSame God< but They are >ALL Corrupt< more or less, some more than others from their original foundational teaching. The older religion are MORE corrupted than newer religion. Question to Muslim and Christian: Does God / Allah only answer your pray ? And God / Allah does not answer non Muslim / non Christian pray? Did Allah '' Canceled '' all other religions Judaism and Christianity? Quran 5:48 '' And We have revealed to you [O Muhammad] the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture ( ie New and old Testament ) and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. >>>TO EACH OF YOU WE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND A METHODone nation>differ qualified < for to enter Paradise ) On the day of judgement God will ''NOT'' judge humanity bases on Sunni Muslim sect VS Shia Muslim sect ''NOR'' by Muslim VS non-Muslim >but< Doer of Goods VS Doer of Evils. '' YOUR " birth in the Muslim's family is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise. '' YOUR " religion / sect / foot long beard is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise. The > qualification < to enter Paradise is > Faith in God and Good Work
Such debates are kind of pointless to begin with, because it is not possible to prove rationally that God exists, not matter the religion. The sole concept alone is unprovable ... and that's the point. That's why we talk about faith. You believe in God without having absolute proof. Faith ends the moment sth can be proven. I cannot have faith that Earth goes around the Sun because it is proven beyond doubt.
Unless you are a specialist in the fields of astrophysics you simply believe what scientists tells you to believe regardless of whether it is true or not. You cannot verify a scientific claim and the majority of people aren't scientists. Just wait for the next article in the scientific journal and go along with it
I hope you all enjoy the copy with the improved audio (and clarification subtitles where the audio couldn't be improved or the speakers couldn't be heard properly).
While the debaters could hear eachother just fine and could engage in a clear debate, the stream to the audience wasn't good or clear in some places. So the audio was improved in this copy by removing all distortions and sound glitches (where possible), by inserting a separate back-up parallel recording of the debate that was made with another device.
The original video can be found here for anyone interested in comparing the two: ruclips.net/video/vFI6VWrgEXA/видео.html
BarakAllahu Feek
BarakAllahu Feek
Alhamdulillahi rabbi al'alameen
I still don’t think your point stands on infinite regress being a contradiction.
Hi I am a Christian and a regular on the MDD channel. I will say Abdullah had a great victory here, and he expressed his arguments in an articulate and respectful fashion. I give a lot of credit to Abdullah, he did a great job in this debate.
😆😆 because you all are against atheism
Let's discuss Islam vs Christianity now. Watch Jimmy swaggart vs Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally vs James White etc.
There are many differences between Islam and Christianity
1 The Qur'an is preserved and there is no distortion in it
It is completely one book in China or America or anywhere
We have the Qur’an dating back to the time of the Prophet in several countries, Turkey, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Cairo, etc. There is also at Bergham University in Britain
It was tested on carbon, and it dates back to 50 years after the death of the
prophet( Muhammad peace be upon him )
The Bible is constantly distorted and there are many different types and books for each type of Christian
Catholic 76 books
Protestant 66 books
There is no need to mention the Mormons or the Christians who don't believed in Jesus to be a God
Unitarian Christians .
And none of them can be proven wrong or right, because the Bible 94% of the are from the ninth century
2 Your belief in the Trinity This idea came in the fourth century .
The early Christians believed that Jesus was the messenger the Prophet , and the ancient and present Jews were waiting for the Messiah, the man, and not God.
There is no Trinity in the Bible Or an idea of a trinity
There was a John 5 7 that was omitted from all books because it "add distortion" in the 17th century
Have you seen how the book that you claim is from the Lord is so simple and you are brainwashed, you just follow without testing
2
And we don't have original sin
Every person is held accountable for what he did and has nothing to do with his father sins.
Every child is born on instinct (فطرة)
To be born a Muslim, but when he reaches puberty, he has the freedom to choose
3
When you say God is three, but not three, but one, this is against logic
Who died on the cross, the three or Jesus?
Does the God die? Do you love the Lord? If you were in the past, would you save God?
If yes, will you disobey God? The correct answer is that you must kill the God to gian your eternal life .
Is faith in human sacrifice the only way? Do the prophets who were before the human sacrifice , are they in the fire?
I hope, my friend, that you are a skeptical man, not blind follower .
If I made a mistake, I hope you will forgive me, I know that religious issues are sensitive
@@lenwilkinson672 Thank you for letting me know.
He did not. He made a lot of bad arguments
This was one of the best debates I've ever seen online, or anywhere else for that matter; with cogent, well thought out questions/answers and arguments, it was a credit to both parties that the level of quality of discussion in regard to the topic was so high. I think, on balance, Abdullah gave the better responses, but, Matt was sure no slouch either. Thoroughly enjoyed the video, and this one should have a Part 2 by public demand! Thanks for uploading.
This was an absolute massacre. I have seen clips where Matt Dillahunty seemed impressive and I honestly thought because he has debated contingency arguments so many times that he would come with some substance. He had absolutely nothing. I was actually shocked by the level of incompetence.
Well done Br. Abdullah.
he says that atheism=agnosticism and runs from any burden of proof
So much atheist cope in the comments too 😂
? He pointed out that Abdullah had no way to prove anything he claimed. That's... Pretty much all that happened and all that needed to happen.
@@49perfectss the fact that matt and by the way you too did not get the argument for the claim of God's existence already confirms what i always thought u were suffering from " coginitive dessonance""
@@49perfectss No, he asserted that Abdullah had no way to prove anything instead of actually responding to the argument. Matt was advancing this naive incoherent logical positivism which claims that science is the only way we know the truth. Obviously, that's false. One way to know the truth is based on logical deduction, which is what Abdullah was doing.
Man this dillahunty guy was a masterclass in sleaze:
- He doesn't prepare for a Muslim opponent, completely ignores everything said in Abdullah's opening and proceeds to give the same generic speech he uses on christians. Not only did he not prepare, he didn't have the mental agility to adapt on the fly in response to Abdullah's definition, and when this gets pointed out to him he tries the "EXCUSE ME SIR THIS IS NOT HOW DEBATES WORK, YOU CANNOT ATTACK MY OPENING STATEMENT, WHO TAUGHT YOU HOW TO DEBATE" sleight of hand.
- Constantly scoffs, smirks, grunts and rolls his eyes. at least he didn't loudly yawn during the debate.
- "excuse me I don't want to score cheap points" before trying to score a cheap point and further avoid the main argument.
- cannot wait to leave, he can't just exit graciously he has to tell everyone he's grabbing dinner and he's too important for the Q&A.
I know you're used to debating perfect gentlemen like Graham Oppy but your ultra soft approach may not be as effective vs some of the more malicious atheists.
It does become quite tiring to hear the same "arguments" for the existence of god repeated ad nauseum. Dillahunty has boiler plate responses for all the logical fallacies that theists engage in. Muslims are not unique, they are in fact, less refined when it comes to defending their religion, because it has enjoyed relative isolation for so long. Christianity has been hotly debated since Darwin and Bacon.
@@plantatheist5883🤦🤦 Islamic theology is different from the others. This shows how ignorant you and the likes of Matt guy are on this subject.
@@plantatheist5883 islam isn't like Christianity , so the claim that christian arguments are more refined than muslim arguments because Christianity has been under scrutiny in the west is false .
@@المسلمالمغربي-ص9د Then provide more refined arguments and shut me up.
@@plantatheist5883 Well what are you arguing against? The divinity of the text? The contents? Its preservation? Its claims? Scientific claims? Contradictions(there is non btw)? The argument for God's existence? (not unique to Islam so don't think you mean this)
Kind of hard to provide an argument when we don't know what you're refuting.
Great debate from Abdullah with a well known internet atheist. Like another comment said, this debate wasn’t advertised enough and I just became aware of it today.
CAN'T BELIEVE I'M JUST FINDING THIS DEBATE NOW!!!! And I'm well aware of both speakers and heavily look into this topic whenever I have the time. Wow, I'll enjoy this one that's for sure. Thank you Abdullah for uploading this.
I am disappointed that there was no announcement or advertisement of this debate. On the original video many atheists watched it and were claiming victory but theists especially muslims were unaware.
Good job Abdullah. May Allah give you success in this life and the next. Ameen
I don't know how atheists can claim victory. Matt dillahunty best argument that you brought forward is that we are in a computer program. But when Abdullah Ali asked him well who made that program. Matt simply replied with that is irrelevant.
You see atheists have to say it is irrelevant. Because they don't want to ask that question "why" anymore. Because if they do they will have to admit there is a. Force outside of this world. That is governing everything.
The time it was announced or when it was released has nothing to do with how the atheist side was far more dominant in this debate.
@@tommykiger1871 That's not what I said. I was referring to the fact that Muslims were unaware and many atheists watched it and most comments were from them.
@@hamzazulfi - Then blame the debater for not promoting it.
That doesn't change that your criticism is still pointless and doesn't change how poorly the Muslim in this debate was.
@@tommykiger1871 I don't know why you are getting triggered when I didn't say anything negative about your group.
Excellent debate Mr. Abdullah. A short word on evidences, all of mathematics and by extension, many of the foundational elements of modern society, are based on abstract, NON PHYSICAL, conceptual and logic/ reason based proofs to ascertain the truthfulness of any theorem, formula or solution.
Abdullah clearly won. Many atheists on the other video probably just went on to comment that Matt won. Anyone who is sincere and watches the video will realize abdullahs points were way stronger.
_" Anyone who is sincere and watches the video will realize abdullahs points were way stronger."_
No. At no point did he show any evidence for his god, which was the point of the debate.
Pointing to an infinite regress isn't evidence for a god ...and it certainly isn't evidence for his particularly god.
@@markh1011 denying God leads to infinite regress. It's not even an evidence; it's a proof for God. But if you want to believe an infinite regress, that's your choice.
@@rezacny
_"denying God leads to infinite regress"_
Not necessarily... the universe could be eternal. Our universe could be occupy part of a larger eternal cosmos. If your god can be eternal and require no creator ...and that isn't an infinite regress then the universe can.
_"It's not even an evidence; it's a proof for God."_
It's neither. It's merely an assertion. 'An infinite regress would be a paradox therefore god.' It's a baseless assertion and a non sequitur.
_"But if you want to believe an infinite regress, that's your choice."_
You appear to because you believe in an eternal god. But hey that's your choice. 😉
But that was a silly deflection from you. The problem remains... no evidence... no proof was provided for a god ... let alone the god Abdullah worships. So he failed in the debate.
At no point did any acual evidence be supplied for a actual god, or gods. A question, If I told you I was the true god would you believe me?. if not, why not.
@@markh1011 "evidence" "particular god" "a god" let me just stop you there my guy.
Do you know what evidence is?
Furthermore, are you aware that evidence can exist for mutually exclusive claims simultaneously?
"What's God's name" is not an argument and is effectively the argument that you're making.
Expert warns of impending genocide in India. Gregory Stanton, the founder and director of Genocide Watch, said during a US congressional briefing there were early “signs and processes” of genocide in the Indian state of Assam and Indian-administered Kashmir.
“We are warning that genocide could very well happen in India,” Stanton said, speaking on behalf of the non-governmental organisation he launched in 1999 to predict, prevent, stop and seek accountability for the crime.
please make video on this one and spread awarness. It is really bad in india and it got worse in last 10 years and it is keep getting worse banning adhan, banning hijab, banned meat.
Summary,
Abdulla: here's a rational argument
Matt: waffle and not tackle the premises of the arguments.
It's clear that even Matt was able to see God then hel still deny him for some emotional reason
If something cannot come out of nothing, then what did God/Allah come from, since he can't have come out of nothing? This means he came from something, what created Allah/God, what created the creator of God/Allah? This implies a infite regression.
I'm really confused here.
@@Ruben-cs6we theres many youtube videos on the contingency argument or kalam cosmological argument and its variations have a look, especially from the Muslim perspective and it should clarify for you
@Ruben-cs6we allah is a self-sustaining and eternal being he does not need a creator nor does he have a beginning
@@Ruben-cs6we to assume that sth must have a creator i.e depending on sth is a self contradictory cuz u can’t have infinite regression of contingencies. So to solve this case it must stop at one point where this doesn’t depend on anything. Otherwise if it does u will just go back to the same illogical argument (infinite regression of dependencies)
@@abd_allah183Your are asserting your belief nothing more. God is just a creation of human thought.
two key moments in the debate that I found fascinating:
Dillahunty's opening statement: "there is no Nobel prize for religion" really betrays his shaky foundation that atheism = rigid, unbiased science and religion = anti science which is so ridiculously historically false I'm surprised Abdullah let it slide. I wish he replied "well there's no Nobel for atheism either" and just owned him then and there.
46:00 Dillahunty unintentionally refutes his entire worldview and agrees with Abdullah with his Conway's way of life example.
I actually was going to say, Nobel prizes are only for new discoveries, not for already well known obvious answers, like God being the Creator of the Universe. But alas I didn't have the time and had to prioritise other more important topics.
@@AbdullahalAndalusi or it could be that he would have pinned you on your definition of religion and the separation of dogma. It is easy to say kafir to those outside one's group, but you already open yourself to enough attacks from within with this conversation. Thank you for this, and keep that exodus going. We will be happy to continue in welcoming new members to the common ground.
Should've responded "that's why there are Templeton Prizes"
I have seen very few atheists deal with their shoddy epistemology. They do far more hand-waving than the theist in that regard because the theist at least will acknowledge and contend with the issues put against their worldview. Atheists don't even acknowledge theirs.
This is dumb. What would a nobel prize for atheism be? Atheism ISNT ANYTHING. You cant "do" atheism. Its just the absence of faith.
Uhh no he didn’t. Matt’s point was that it’s possible for a creator to come about entirely by chance. He didn’t say that is what actually happened. He only said it’s possible for an infinite regress to NOT be a god but could instead be a multiverse.
May Allah bless you brother Andalusi for your hard work. I watched the debate as it went live and I was beyond impressed by your knowledge mashaAllah.
What “knowledge”?
This was a man preaching his fairytales with no evidence attached.
@@2l84me8 Buzzwords, buzzwords
to be fair ( even atheists think this too ) Matt is a horrible at debating and uses outdated arguments & logical fallacies. So him debating Mr.Abdullah is unfair 🤣
Matt was annoyingly ignorant throughout the debate. He kept repeating "we don't have enough evidence" like a parrot without responding to any of the actual arguments that Abdulla brought. Honestly I don't know how he was able to remain calm and explain the arguments over and over again.
You get used to that when you debate.
*_Atheism is like a fish denying the existence of water._*
not really.
Atheism is listening to thousands of different god stories from various theists and constantly telling them "you go ahead and believe in whatever that works for you, just leave me out of it and don't impose any of it onto others".
You're an atheist with respect to Zeus... The lord of all lords.
@Hussain Fahmy You can investigate and collect evidence that there's a fish and water. Can you do that to your God? Or is it just wishful thinking?
@@StepnieW you do realise that empiricism isnt the only type of proof right? And if you’re saying he is wrong, then how? How is he wrong when he proved the only explanation is God and disproved every other “possibility”
usually, Matt Dillahunty uses arguments against christians and his supporters hail them as great victory, but Mr. Al Andalusi destroyed Dillahunty. WOW!!!
You are delusional
At which time stamp?
I feel sad for anyone watching these debates to simply cheer for the side they ALREADY agree with. It's much more liberating to watch with an open mind and not concern oneself with who "won" or who "lost". We are all searching for truth, there is no winner or loser. Only people with stronger and weaker arguments
yea matt seems to be applying cognitive dissonance
@@theresecasanova1373 44:20 enjoy 😉
The question is dumb. Back in the day they’d laugh at an “atheist” who asks it. You’re the evidence. That fact that you exist and are breathing, thinking, experiencing the world within your consciousness.
1:44:40 After the answers of Abdullah and Matt I would have asked in return: What would count for you [atheits] as evidence for God? (I get the impression that nothing qualifies for them as sufficient, as "there could be another possibility we don't know about yet")
They would probably say God showing himself or God knows what counts as sufficient evidence for me.
Grow a limb on an amputee. Then I'd start considering supernatural causes.
The only god that could exist, is a god that doesn't care.
Hi, obviously there is no answer that qualifies for every atheist. I see myself as atheist, meaning that I am not convinced that there are gods. So I cannot answer for all "atheists" in general, only for myself.
For me the answer is very easy - I'd need the exact same amount of evidence that I'd expect for any claim before believing in it.
For example I do not believe that Harry Potter and the magical society described in the Books is real and I think we can agree on that. There are thousands of things, objects, places and descriptions of things in the Books that are real and are used to make the story more believable - and could be considered "evidence". However in case of Harry Potter we agree that the author just put real parts in and mixed them with fiction in order to make for a more believable story. It is not correct to say something like "see railways exist, and railways are used to get magical students to Hogwarts. That is evidence for the claim that the magical society exists". This is only evidence so far in that, if railways didn't exist it would be counter evidence. I hope the analogy - crude as it may be - comes across.
In that sense let me ask you: what, for you personally, would qualify as sufficient evidence to believe that the world of Harry Potter is real. Try to really think about it and be honest - and consider all the technologies that could be used to trick you. Can you come up with something, some test or demonstration - you know "evidence" that would 100% convince you that the wizards world is real?
Does your religion give you that kind of evidence? Try to really think about it, because this is the kind of evidence I will ask for if you try to convince me that the story and magic in your book is real.
@@marwilbow A God that doesn't care??
What Matt did in this discussion was basically denying the argument presented, always falling back to the claim "there might be another possibility, we don't know about yet".. This is essencially an "argument from ignorance". Atheists have claimed that theist construct their belief in God based on ignorance ie. "God of the gaps". What we have seen in this discussion is an "atheism of the gaps".
What Abdullah provided was a positiv argument about God, based on an exhaustive examination of all possibilities... Well, after that I think it's the other way around: you don't care about God!
When an argument like this is presented to you on a silver plate and you don't take it.. maybe an emotional struggle with God can explain such behaviour.
Sorry for my rant, I'm just a bit baffled by your comment :)
Commenting for the algorithm
@1:43:30 Matt just admitted defeat. Thank you for this Upload I always learn from you Abdullah.
@@tiktokasylum5186 atheism is a product of arrogance, it never was from lack of knowledge
2:06:26 how can you show that God is all powerful? Perfect answer and analogy in one minute.
I don’t think that Matt prepared himself for this debate. His idea that infinite regression is not a problem to him is “odd” to say the least. Abdullah a full 10 and Matt an infinitely regressive 0 which he should not have a problem with 😂.
Thank you brother Abdullah , May Allah reward you home in Jannah.
That program example was one of the most pathetic things I have ever heard from an Atheist.
You're right it was pathetic, but not the most pathetic thing i've heard from an atheist.
You did well, Abdullah.
Just so I understand you, you are saying that the Universe cannot be the necessary being because
1) It is conceivably divisible
2) It does not have intention
Is that correct?
Why would a necessary entity have intention?
How is the universe conceivably divisible?
@@plantatheist5883 Well, I think Abdullah (channel owner) would be a better person to answer but if I understand this correctly then a necessary being must have intention. This is because there is a point when it (necessary being) started to create this universe (space, energy, matter and time). Before that it had not created this universe. What led to this transition? Intention.
Could the universe simply be infinite in the past? That would mean that we still need to go through infinite points in time to get where we are. That means we currently should not be existing!
I believe this is Abdullah's position and it does appear to make sense.
@@DrKildem
"What led to this transition? Intention."
Or it was just a set of circumstances that brought about the creation. You also still have not explained how "god" came to be.
"Could the universe simply be infinite in the past? That would mean that we still need to go through infinite points in time to get where we are. That means we currently should not be existing! "
Using the contracting and expanding theory of the universe we can explain this dilemma. If the universe has a "starting point" in the big bang, expands into infinity, slows down, stops and then retracts back into itself and then has another big bang etc. ad infinitum - we get an infinite universe that does not contain infinite stretches of time.
Time is not a line upon which things need to travel. Time is just a human concept to make sense of cause and effect. It does not exist as a tangible entity. "Infinite time" is illogical, not because of infinity, but because of time.
If the universe began then "time" began with the universe and there was no "time" within which "god" could have created the universe.
If the universe is infinite then it stands to reason that time is contained within that infinity.
In either case, w do not need god to create the universe.
@@plantatheist5883 The universe is continually expanding and contracting? Have we even seen a contracting universe? What does that even look like?
In any case if we exist in the, let us say, 100th expansion (100th big bang) then there were 99 in which we did not exist. Fine. But if there were infinite expansions then are we not at the same problem? Namely, there had to have been infinite expansions before our one. No?
@@DrKildem Excellent reply!
Great Debate. Dr Abdullah is legit. ☝️
I listened/watched this debate twice, it seemed that there's a disagreement on the point of infinite regress and its validity in arguing for god. Could there be another video (whether with or without Matt) on this specific topic (i.e., the infinite regress)? Thanks!
Went as i predicted it, Matt will acknowledge the infinite regress and will agree that something would need to act as a first cause but then Matt and other athiests will say that, its too early to rule out other options
And when asked about other options, matt/atheists.will say, we haven't discovered them yet so we don't know 🤷🏾♂️
Then you ask matt/atheist then how do you know there are other options if we havent discovered them, then the athiest will ask, how do you NOT know there are.other.options 😅
And it will go in circles 😅
So basically believers are currently using the best possible explanation while atheists are FAITHFULLY waiting for a new option 😅
Think of a judge, they rule out all possible outcomes depending on evidence and then make a judgement based in that current situation. This is what believers are doing, we have weighed up the information amd we can justify our belief UNTIL proven otherwise 🤷🏾♂️
Perfect reply. I have seen great lot of debates with Atheists. And this is their trump card. Ultra Skepticism.
I'm not a Muslim but I like Andalusi. Intelligent and thoughtful man.
Dillahunty, on the other hand...
Matt was decent enough and did not pose the question "which god?". If Abdullah had tried to defend the bs in the Quran, he would have looked incredibly stupid.
@@PramodKumar-gy8lb “bs”
@@bengreen171 inconsistencies?💀 there is literally NONE🤦🏻♂️ love it when people talk about stuff they know nothing about🤦🏻♂️
@@tranium67 Here's one example of bs.
Borrow a fictional "event" from another religion and then get confused about the climax.
Was Noah's son drowned?
All of Noah's family survived ( 21:76 )
-Noah's son drowned ( --4:15-- )-
Noah's son drowned ( 11:42-43 )
Edit: my bad for quoting the wrong verse about Noah's son drowning. I have corrected it now. Thank you ben green.
Since we're on verse 4:15 let's just identify yet another bs.
What is punishment for adultery?
100 lashes for both the man & woman ( 24:2 )
Confinement (Quran 4:15 )
Grant pardon (Quran 4:16 )
Stoning to death (Bukhari 8:816 )
@@bengreen171 41: 9-12 LoL, I can see your ignorance, do you even know which time reference it is taking for, when it is saying 2 days and 4 days?
Not earth for sure, how can it reference to Earth's time when it was non existent during creation of it?
Do you not use analytical skills of your brain?
At 1:08:30, the arrow example. I seen this question posited towards either you or Hijab. I think at oxford. I think Matt is conflating the idea of infinity of quantity rather then quality i believe was the answer before. So between the arrow and the target is a fixed number, everything in between is subjective measurements. This is how I understand it. Allah knows best. Thank you for the work Ustadth Abdullah
At about a minute later about space and time, I personally conclude that I don’t know and i am comfortable that we won’t know 100% of Allah swt in this reality at least. Part of the Unseen from what i conclude. We know for sure what He swt revealed to us. Idk if space and time and presence of Allah swt was directly mentioned other then being “above all that exists” which is good enough for me because of all the interpretations you get from that saying. Allah knows best
Lol at 1:12:47
Debating with atheists is like arguing for colour of orange is orange, atheists will come along and tell you it's actually green; and not only that they'll start describing apple in that process, moreover, they'll accuse you of not addressing their position, or that you don't know how to argue. Lmao!
This comment section is moderated right? Like I can't make a critical comment of Abdullah and hope that my comment gets to remain here right?
I don't delete comments, unless they contain rude words or are spam. You should be able to see many critical comments by atheists on here already.
@@AbdullahalAndalusi I know that bro. I am saying you are on point with your arguments unlike the atheist.
I love you Ustad for the sake of Allah...
This is where Matt Dillahunty dug his own grave 44:19. It's funny cause he was taking about algorithm that generates infinite amount of generators or something but he forgot the question that where did that specific algorithm started this process came from? He acts like he is a genius but grievously he is not.
matt talks about an algorithm
then when challenged by abdullah against his positions tells him what is a program
matt: it does not matter
loooooooooool
@@bengreen171 abdullah answered that
But it is easy
Matt wanna make the claim that by chance the algorithm happened to "create" new stuff
But in reality the algorithm was programmed by an intelligent person who did that
So that analogy is totally against him
😉😉😉
Do not challenge me and make presuppositions
So is your bet wrong?
@@bengreen171 another mistake in the analogt that abdullah is talking about the first start
So u starting with an algorithm is a strawman
That is a bonus for you
So how much i care
😎😎😎
@@bengreen171 and was the program done intentionally or not?
Yes otherwise it will be a contradiction
So i am gonna still laugh
So again missing the point
We are talking about the absolute start
So your anogy is a strawman
@@bengreen171 but the conway game only shows from simplicity we can have complexity
You are interpreting it as if this means non intentionality
U have to prove it
@@bengreen171 and that is why he asked him what is a programm
It is a set of rules that will produce something
So it ia no unintentional
It was designed by a designer to do a task
Which means it is not random
See where the laugh is
جزاك الله خيرًا مناظرة مفيدة جدًا استاذنا العزيز 🌹
I love how Abdullah gets Matt to subconsciously admit to the existence of God through a Freudian slip at 1:11:06 😂
اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَىٰ سَيِّدِنَا مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَىٰ آلِهِ وَصَحْبِهِ وَسَلِّمْ
Allāhumma ṣalli ʿalā Sayyidinā Muḥammadin wa ʿalā ālihi wa ṣaḥbihi wa sallim
O Allah, send prayers and peace upon Muhammad and upon his Family and Companions.
How can I join your course ?
See link in description, it will be available soon Insha'Allah
Pay him a lot of cash.
@@plantatheist5883u guys are soo desperate.
Matt failed miserabley
46:00 big own goal by Matt
But he came back strongly at about @1:10:00
My guy said scientific evidence for God. Basically asking for a naturalistic explanation for something supernatural.
Can't wait to see this
When causality sneaks in, atheists appeal to magic! How can one not accept that infinite regress is impossible , inconceivable and unreasonable?!?!
Please Abdullah show these people how silly their thought process is by transferring it to real life.
Imagine one these atheists using their logic in a murder investigation:
"well this guy has 10 bullet wounds from different guns in the back of his head, but I have not seen a shooter so we have no reason to suspect one"
Athiests would use deductive reasoning to prove that their ancestors were monkeys, despite having fundamental missing pieces in the theory
But in order to prove the existence of a Creator by analyzing a creation, they need to actually see the Creator and thats only how they would be convinced
@@NamesAreVacuous
_"We clearly have sufficient proof."_
....and what is that proof?
_"well this guy has 10 bullet wounds from different guns in the back of his head, but I have not seen a shooter so we have no reason to suspect one"_
This is a laughably bad analogy.
The Strawman fallacy.
@@markh1011 The fact they can't see it's bad is the most worrying thing. Just in case they read this comment and would like to understand where that analogy falters: you're using an example of something we know to be caused/created by someone (the bullet wounds), so we know that somebody did it without witnessing the shooting because we have evidence of what bullet wounds look like and what causes them. You're comparing to something that we don't know to be created or caused (the universe). Have you ever seen an example of another universe being created before? It's just typical watchmaker analogy rubbish.
JazakAllahu khairan
I love how almost every debate mat has with a religious person starts with then saying his opening statement didnt rebutt anything from their opening statement
🤣🤣 Matt didn't even noticed that the argument he is using actually helps us, here is how: (1)that game of life example he gave only shows that something complex can come out of/created by something far more simpler which is what we believe i.e God relatively simple entity than the universe creating the universe (2) destroys the athiest argument that shouldn't God requires cause more than us because he must be far more complex bcz he created us.
So you are saying that human beings are simpler than toilet paper?
I thought we were too much complex to appear naturally
@@32Eratosthene51 🤣🤣🤣🤣 is that what I'm saying lol
@@whitewolf5762 you said simple things/being causes more complex things/being into existence and i answered you by asking a rhetorical question
I am wondering what you understood from my previous comment to have such reaction
@@32Eratosthene51 u said "You said simple thing/beings causes more complex things"
What where did I say that????
What I actually said was that simple things CAN cause complex things as the game of life example of Matt showed, i hope u will soon learn what CAN means and stop being a simpleton atheist
Note: Btw if u have any real criticism of what I said in that comment feel free to share and this time do quote me word for word
@@whitewolf5762 no nothing i misread and misunderstood your comment thanks for correcting me 🙂
But just a correction. Your second point isnt an atheist argument but the conclusion of an argument for the existence of God which atheist pointed out
Actually debate conceded at 49:48
I dont get it, are both sides discussing in favour of God's existance? Is this even a debate.
Because Matt is continuously bringing up analogies that can actually be used as a proof for God's existance.
Zeno's paradox, the computer game, impossibility of movement. etc.😂
the argument is on minute 1:05:00 and 1:22:00 and 1:25:00 and 1:27:00
Absolutely a great job Abdullah 👏
Alhamdulilah!
The forms you were referring are the same as platonic forms, and world of form dependency is it the argument of alghazaly?
47:03 this is where poor matt lost the debate lol😂😭💀
BarakAllahu Feek Mufti. Everyone donate to the hungry, orphans, and widows!! Ramadan is almost over and Laylatul Al-Qadr can occur for us!! May Allah Ar-Razzaq guide us all on the righteous path of Haqq. AAMEEN!☪️☝🏽😭
Lol at 1:12:47 x) the irony xD. Fitrah speaking or past experience, i think both tbh. As if he understood through fitrah before and that saying resonated b4. Then when distress came, the fitrah jumped. Just like how Allah says when someone (disbeliever i believe) on a ship during storm middle of ocean about to sink, they call out to Allah. That to me is the Fitrah
PS. His explanation of the universe imo does not seem consistent or defined. At least that’s what i got. Using words like “tend” does not seem very accurate to a definition of limits or something like that
What do generators in conways game of life have to do with anything?
That game is strictly deterministic, so these generators Matt speaks about are the exact "caused" processes that Abdullah was referring to earlier, and not the necessary existence (from the perspective of the gliders?) that Matt seems to be implying they are?
Abdullah Bhai did a great job. This proves that the argument is valid,sound and beautiful
Abdullah, your case for a sustainer of movement and the impossibility of crossing an infinite number of points between space points, is just a "god of the gaps" in the area of quantum mechanics and the higgs field. You, me, and every other person on the planet does not know enough about the fundamentals of the universe and its composition in order to make claims about what is actually happening. One thing that I think you may be overlooking, is that matter and energy are interchangeable. From our perspective, matter takes a position in space and moves through time to another location. But the quantum world does not work like this. Something that can help is researching the higgs field. The higgs field is what gives mass to other fundamental particles, like quarks and electrons. Particles move through the higgs field and, therefore space time, without moving from point to point in the way that at we observe matter move through space.
The bottom line is, we simply do not know enough about the fundamental nature of reality, and just like from countless other examples throughout history, you are positing god as a solution to something we observe in reality, without any demonstration and only with your ignorance to exactly what is actually happening. One day, just like with everything else, we may discover exactly how these mechanisms work and what explains all of this, but until then the only honest answer is "we don't know", and in this case, we actually have an idea about how to explain this phenomenon. Quantum mechanics (and I am absolutely not an expert) is a new and mysterious field. It is often described as "spooky" because things happen in the quantum world that from our level of reality makes no sense at all or seems impossible, and yet it happens. All that means is that we need better explanations and evidence to understand what is happening, and to posit an answer without that kind of evidence (mathematics, physics, equations, observable data and repeatable results [like how we discovered the higgs boson]) is dishonest, unscientific, and a god of the gaps fallacy.
I like the way Abdullah answered APs question while ignoring wether to debate him or not. Abdullah doesn't debate trolls. Maybe AP should learn from Mr Dilahunty
Apuss already got dismantled by a kid sat in the cold in his back yard.
If anyone thinks Apuss has the mental ability to debate Abdullah then he needs therapy. Guy got rinsed on the Thought Adventure Podcast when they discussed the Contingency Argument with him.
@@RealVerseslmao
May is arrogant dismissed everything without providing any plausible explanation or proposition.
Thats like every atheist that’s in denial
JazakAllahu khairan sheikh al-andalusi may Allah grant u Al-Firdaus, amin
Regarding inference in science, you can demonstrate from a scientific paradigm, "gravity" cannot be seen, smelled, heared or touched but you do believe that gravity explains that if an object is dropped then it would ultimately fall and you inferred a NAME to this. He is very contradicting himself.
Here is an option that i don't see a contradiction in, and i would love for Abdullah or anyone else to show me:
- the universe has always existed, but without changing and without shaps or forms.
And without a cause it bagun to change into forms.
I know it sounds very weird, but the question is if there is a prove, and if thre is i would love to see it, that this option is contradictory/not probable 🙏
The universe is defined by space (i.e. size). So ff the universe always existed but had no shape or form and then it changed into having shape and forms (this is basically saying it had 0 size and then had size), that basically means it was nothing and from this nothing it became something. That's a contradiction.
@@AbdullahalAndalusi thanks but i don't understand where is the contradiction in a universe that as mat said, have smallest particlase physicaly.
The fact that you can divide something in your mind doesn't mean you can do it in reality, and therefor this contradiction is maybe just in your mind.
And, i think you have a contradiction in your world view because if the universe isn't made of smallest particlase with size - than it can't have size because 0+ 0 = 0, i just don't see how god solves this.
Thanks for your help 🙏
Great debate!
I think the premise for the debate itself was a bit problematic. What defines "GOOD EVIDENCE". For almost all atheists, evidence has to come out of methodological naturalism. But they don't explain why that is the yardstick and who made it the yardstick. Since there are multitudes of truths for which one can't have the kind of evidence that methodological naturalism is aimed to provide.
What 'good evidence' aside from testimony can you provide that your great great great great great grandfather existed ?
What ' good evidence is there that other minds exist?
What 'good evidence' can provide that you feel pain, love, and hatred?
If the only yardstick for believable knowledge is methodological naturalism and just be consistent and accept that you cannot know for sure that your consciousness, rational faculties exists and you cannot know that other minds exist. So the logical outcome for that line of thinking is that you don't know anything for certain , hence just the fact he logged into his computer to debate Abdullah makes him inconsistent with his own beliefs- sicne what Good evidence can he provide that his own mind exists to begin with?
1:12:47.. Matt Dillahunty : oh my God! 😁
Instead, he should say oh my atoms/ universe..
Oh My God .....🤣🤣🤣🤣
Islam so simple
Masha'ALLAH
Its crazy how science accepts a theory as it stands now until someone comes along to disprove it and a new theory(hypothesis) is put forward then they go along with that until new evidence is found again. However because there is no evidence other than the ones put forward through religious books, teachings and historical events and science is unable to disprove religion is unwilling to accept it a theory.
What is FIRST PRINCIPLES?
First principles: e.g. I exist, I sense something outside myself beyond my control, the law of non-contradiction etc
Dillahunty is ranter
Serious question here, I understand the point Abdullah is making and it broadened my understanding of religion. Yet I don't understand this:
If something cannot come out of nothing, then what did God/Allah come from, since he can't have come out of nothing? This means he came from something, what created Allah/God, what created the creator of God/Allah? This implies a infinite regression.
I'm really confused here, please explain.
They can't buddy...they can't
If we say that there is something created GOD , we may ask who created who created God, and so on ,and this leads to an infinite regress, which is mentally impossible. It remains only to say that it is necessary to reason that God is eternal beyond the boundaries of time and space, And this doesn't lead to infinite regression, I hope the point is clear .
@@mohammadaltaj389 nope, it's begging the question. Why the logical conclusion should be god?
@@skeptic_Todd If your problem is with the term (God), do not call it (God) if you want, usually they call it in Islamic theological books the term (maker) or (the first cause), is your problem only in the word (God)?? What is your logical (not verbal) objection to what I said??
@@mohammadaltaj389yes but why is it a particular god?
You could brought up better counterpoints to multiverse such as model itself has to be finely tuned or inverse gamblers fallacy
13:36 - Does Dillanhunty understand the nature of will in human beings. Just because someone can rationalise something doesn’t necessite they will accept it.
There is an emotional aspect to humanity that blatantly obvious.
does anyone else notice that when matt talks the other guy looks like hes browsing youtube. happpens on most of the debates
Great debate.
Is the start of any causal chain due to an intention?
@Marwan abdel moneim Is that an impossibility?
@Marwan abdel moneim That's an argument from incredulity.
@Marwan abdel moneim Perhaps our universe creation was unintentional. Perhaps it was a follow on effect of something else. Perhaps it happened totally naturally without any mind being involved at all.
If you go back far enough it would have seemed impossible that the earth and stars could have been created without intention. It would have seemed absurd to even suggest it. But we now know that there are natural processes that create planets and stars. No magical beings need to be involved.
@Marwan abdel moneim
_"it is strange to say that God would create the universe without an intention"_
That's still possible.
_" And I believe that what you just described is a "belief"_
No it isn't. I'm not making a claim.
_"Why there is a universe in the first place?"_
No one knows.
Why is your god here in the first place?
_"Who decided the laws of physics that would determine"_
Your question presupposes a "who".
_" That "natural process" happens because of the existence of certain phenomenons that we have no idea why they exist, like mutations, no mutations, no evolution. "_
.....and?
_"So, why do they exist in the first place?"_
Mostly copying errors. The type of thing you would expect in a universe not created by an omnipotent, omniscient being.
_"How something could come from nothing? 2- "_
That's your claim not mine.
_"How does chemistry turn into biology?"_
People are still trying to work that out. A lot of progress has been made but we don't have the answer yet. Is that a problem? Should we be omnipotent in 2022?
_"How did we get consciousness?, Are those gaps?"_
Yep.
_"Anyway, these discussions never go anywhere"_
I don't know if this qualifies as a discussion yet. You just sprayed a range of questions, as if questions are somehow an argument.
If I make enough unfounded assertions I prove my case, right?
lol, basically what matt did in a nutshell
Which is exactly what atheism is, an unfounded assertion lol
when the rubber meets the road, the atheists fall back and admit to believing in a contradiction
SUBHANALLAH
Absolutely
Asalamu Alaykum Abdullah
Allah bless you...
whatever, lol
1:04:50 - superb Abdullah!
I've yet to see anyone present verified evidence for any gods, feelings, faith, and beliefs, are not evidence. words written in ancient texts are not evidence because whoever wrote those words are basing their writings on feelings, faith, and beliefs. So saying that, can anyone please show me just a single piece of actual evidence that undeniably proves the existence of any god/gods.
@@nurdiinnn3951 I did, and not at any point was actual evidence put forward that is undeniable proof of a god. just opinions, sorry but opinions don't equate to truth, only the truth does.
What's considered evidence to you?
@@powerdavid6235 opinions? Okay, then can u give us ONE possibility that doesnt include God? He clearly proved every other “possibility” is impossible
watch the video
@@FlammablePunch What do I consider evidence?.. Well any really, I don't consider fitting in a "God" just because you don't acually know something. Feelings, faith, and beliefs aren't evidence for anything without actually backing up that claim, and so far there's been ZERO evidence for any gods.
Matt Dillahunty is great in pointing out societal ills and fallacies in each religion. But then, we all are --- in every religion except our own. So Matt is just an expert in one more religion than us.
But when it comes to debating the existence of this minimal (possibly deistic) God, he's hopeless. When told "something can't come from nothing", he asks "how can you be sure?". If he's skeptical to that degree, then his mind is made up. Nothing can change him. His often used sentences -- "I am not convinced", "you haven't demonstrated blah blah" are the dumbest answers to "something can't come from nothing". To what other avenue in life does he bring this skepticism?
How many times did you observe nothing to determine what nothing can and cannot do?
@@fibonacimike4110
:) :)
The same number of times I've looked for an integer between 5 and 6, hoping to win the Fields medal.
The same number of times I've looked north of the north pole, hoping to rival Jacques Cousteau.
Psst: No number of times will suffice... problem of induction.
@@JohnRussell2512 so how did you determine something cannot come from nothing?
@@fibonacimike4110
The same way you've determined there's no integer between 5 and 6, and there's no 'north of the north pole', or A=A etc.
@@JohnRussell2512 A=A is a law of logic which we pre suppose are you saying you are simply presuposing it?
اللهم صل وسلم على سيدنا ومولانا محمد عبدك ورسولك النبي الأمي وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم
I hear theists say constantly "Something cannot come from nothing", yet will claim their god did exactly that when you follow up with, "If a creation demands a creator, who created your god?". And that's where they get caught in a loop of their own making. There's about 3,000 known gods in the world, and every believer in those gods claim that their god is the true god. People can't even prove that there's even one god, let alone then proving that the god they believe is the true god. You simply can't all be right, and who's to say YOU are right and THEY are wrong. Every religion claims to have proof of their god/gods, yet not a single one of them have demonstrated evidence for that gods existence, not one.
@@theunclethetwo3038
_"There has to have been one, the source from which all else came"_
Even if that were true.... and we don't know that it is.... but even if it were true, when you claim "That is God, the Creator," you are making a very large claim with no real support behind it at all.
@@theunclethetwo3038 No, a god didn't describe his/her beginning in the Qur'ran, a human did 1,400 years ago, a text written in the bronze age. There's ZERO evidence that a god said anything within ANY religious texts. Hindus have older texts than the Que'ran and they claim their gods say something completely different from what the Qur'ran (or the Bible) says. So there's already a conflict as to what is written about the beginning of gods. How do you go about sorting out which is true, and what isn't?. Why should I care about what ancient texts written by humans say?, it's just their opinions based on no evidence. The Qu'ran is just as flawed as any other religious texts written by humans.
@@asraabdulahi956
_", that necessary being, must have, such as a will. "_
Actually you don't know that there is a being. If there was a being you don't know that it had a will. These are just baseless assertions.
Then you take another leap and claim that this being with the will is the particular god you like.
You are taking all these leaps when none of it is supported.
@@asraabdulahi956 And YOUR belief is no different from THEIR belief. While you believe there is only one true creator some believe there;s multiple creators. YOU cannot prove your claim, just as they cannot prove theirs. You all get your first impressions of a god from rligious texts, a man made construct. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc etc all have different religious texts telling the story of creation. Again, you can't all be right.
@@powerdavid6235 "He is One only without a second."
[Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]
"Of Him there are neither parents nor lord."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]
"There is no likeness of Him."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3
The following verses from the Upanishad allude to the inability of man to imagine God in a particular form:
"His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]
"There is no image of Him."
[Yajurveda 32:3]
"He is bodyless and pure."
[Yajurveda 40:8]
"They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements" (Air, Water, Fire, etc.). "They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti."
[Yajurveda 40:9]
Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol, etc.
"O friends, do not worship anybody but Him, the Divine One. Praise Him alone."
[Rigveda 8:1:1]
The Brahma Sutra of Hinduism is:
"Ekam Brahm, dvitiya naste neh na naste kinchan"
"There is only one God, not the second; not at all, not at all, not in the least bit."
"Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures."
[Bhagavad Gita 7:20]
Abdullah’s entire argument summed up in one sentence:
There is so much we don’t know, therefor God.
That’s it, that’s his entire argument, he just added a shit ton of fluff. But that’s the argument.
If you all think that’s a good argument… good for you I guess.
Actually his argument is to avoid infinite regress have to have an uncaused cause. Issue is infinite regress has never been fully ruled out.
Thats not what he says. He says, that no other explanation is rational and that they all lead to contradictions and absurdities, except for god, therefore the best explanation is god. Your comprehension skills are laughable lol.
Matt, what's your proof we are living on a spinning wet ball?
Alhamdullilah
السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ
As-Salaamu `Alaykum wa Rahmatullaahi wa Barakaatuhu
Nice
Wow, God is a programmer is a new one, what an insanely dumb comparison.
Abdullah Al Andalusian: This, that, that's how = Good argument for God
Matt: No, not a good argument
James Kunz: Let them argue, I'm making dinner rolls and porridge on their pointless debate, I win either way 😎
If there is a god that means we're all trapped in it's creation and even death just leads to more existence in the god's creation.
Any proof for the bs that you spouted?
@@PramodKumar-gy8lb you can see it right you indian are you blind brother?☺
You have to demonstrate those claims first. You can’t just assert they are true.
5:13
( Do Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? )
Quran 2:62
'' Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians->ANYAllah< Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques )
Quran 22:40
[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, " Our Lord is God " And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
Note: Why did Allah protected Churches and Synagogues if they worship false Allah ?
( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? )
Quran 5 48
''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation.( ie single religion ) But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you (ie Scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you '' >DISPUTE verb < not noun like other religions
Islam mean "submission" to God
( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the >MUSLIM< and the Non-Muslims but total "submission" to God )
Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim "submit" to the God?
Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work.
Note: If you obeyed all the ABOVE Allah-God's moral laws "YOU" submitted to God.( ie Islam mean "submission" to God )
The only people who will enter Paradise those who '' Submitted to God '' ( ie by good deeds )
God does NOT accept your religion of birth but only ''Your Total'' Submission to Him.
( God Allows Interfaith Marriages And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa )
Quran 5:5
''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers (ie Muslim ) and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless and he in the Hereafter will be among the losers.''
Note: > Only < Islam allows interfaith marriages (>14 hundredsSame God< but They are >ALL Corrupt< more or less, some more than others from their original foundational teaching. The older religion are MORE corrupted than newer religion.
Question to Muslim and Christian:
Does God / Allah only answer your pray ?
And God / Allah does not answer non Muslim / non Christian pray?
Did Allah '' Canceled '' all other religions Judaism and Christianity?
Quran 5:48
'' And We have revealed to you [O Muhammad] the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture ( ie New and old Testament ) and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. >>>TO EACH OF YOU WE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND A METHODone nation>differ qualified < for to enter Paradise )
On the day of judgement God will ''NOT'' judge humanity bases on Sunni Muslim sect VS Shia Muslim sect ''NOR'' by Muslim VS non-Muslim >but< Doer of Goods VS Doer of Evils.
'' YOUR " birth in the Muslim's family is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise.
'' YOUR " religion / sect / foot long beard is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise.
The > qualification < to enter Paradise is > Faith in God and Good Work
yes. yes there is
49:30
Such debates are kind of pointless to begin with, because it is not possible to prove rationally that God exists, not matter the religion. The sole concept alone is unprovable ... and that's the point. That's why we talk about faith. You believe in God without having absolute proof. Faith ends the moment sth can be proven. I cannot have faith that Earth goes around the Sun because it is proven beyond doubt.
That is an assumption unless you bring evidence forward that proves the assumption to be true and therefore a fact.
“The sole concept is unprovable” u really said that after he proved the only explanation for our existence includes God?
eeh no? there is nothing more easily provable than god
Unless you are a specialist in the fields of astrophysics you simply believe what scientists tells you to believe regardless of whether it is true or not. You cannot verify a scientific claim and the majority of people aren't scientists. Just wait for the next article in the scientific journal and go along with it
@Sanderus You can easily prove God on first principles, which are fundamental laws of logic that science and philosophy presuppose.