This brother can explain things so simple to understand and he does not attack the “ others” but always explains why they are wrong in the most friendly way and full respect. I have never seen this before. Beautiful. May Allah give hem mercy in this life and the next one. Ameen.
my suggestion is to be specific like the Quran does. Circumstantial evidence or the cumulative effect of evidence in legal contexts. Individually, each piece of evidence might seem inconclusive or weak. However, when combined, the interrelation between these pieces can create a compelling narrative or a strong body of proof. According to Quran, try to combine the below outcomes using randomness. Its impossible. • Nature had to figure out how to make rain a recurrent process. scientific term is water cycle • Rain water could have been bitter, salty, sour, carbonated etc. (nature was biased in its selection). • Water was preserved in the form of lakes and ponds and underground water. • Water sewerage system comes in whereby the rivers will transport the water to the sea. • A barrier prevents salty water from mixing with the river water. • You throw the inside of dates but in grains you eat the inside and throw the outside. • Coloration is a recurrent feature in mountains, fruits, plants, people, and animals. Uncolored outcome in a random selection was entirely skipped. Applying the theory of probability, it cannot be other than a biased selection. • Seed evolved into diversity and variety • Our digestive system prefers softness, and fruits undergo a natural ripening process. Milk and meat were necessary for human evolution. Quran wants us to reflect: • Out of thousands of species that live in the wild, cattle live with us and were made 4 pairs. • The law of reproduction ensures sufficient quantity. • Since cow eats only grass, our expectation is that cow's milk should come out mixed with blood and waste and other excretions. Instead it comes out pure white liquid. • Leveled earth stunned geologists and they gave it the term 'plains'. Why leveled? To facilitate transportation in land. • Archimedes’ buoyancy law facilitates marine transportation. • [Newtons law of attraction] prevents the skies from falling. • We need stars to determine directions. • The sun rises and sets but the moon does not. • The moon changes shape but the sun does not. • We need to calculate time and, surprisingly, moon is an illuminating disc (lunar) that changes shape. it divides our calendar into 4 weeks by giving 4 primary shapes. • We need daylight to make a living and darkness to rest and, surprisingly, we find variation in the day light in a cycle of 1 day and daylight dims then turns off to be able to sleep well. In a court of law, this is sufficient (Quantity) appropriate (Quality) proof of a supernatural power. Theist should win a court of law on the grounds of self-evidence. Our expectation is that this power must identify himself, claim ownership of the universe and clarify the purpose of life. In line with our expectation, Abraham’s God made that claim. Lecture by Al-Azhar school of theology scholar late Mohamed Metwally Al-Sharawy.
@J0314915 Inshallah I can do podcasts with Dr Atilla on a regular basis. He also has a number of talks on the ISRA channel www.youtube.com/@israacademy
Thoughtful and thought provoking, may Allah bless you both, great ending. This is Islam at its best answering the Big questions and connecting us deeply to our Creator
Saying that God does not exist because evil exists is a self-defeating argument. Why? Because the moment you label something as evil you are saying that there is a will, a mind behind these actions. In other words, you can only ask the question of evil in a paradigm that God exists. I have shared a more detailed reasoning behind this.
Cette entrevue permet de relativiser cette compréhension du sens de la vie. La vie humaine (75 ans) est vraiment très courte et c'est pour cela que la vie spirituelle est nécessaire. Donc après la mort, notre âme n'est plus limitée avec les contraintes du monde physique: notre âme évolue plus vite et l'objectif à atteindre est claire et rien ne nous distrait. ❤❤❤🙏🙏✌✌
@@drzuleyhakeskin Let me establish the source of “Transcendental apperception”. Quran(only scripture with 100% preservation/accuracy) says:”Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology(abiogenesis) via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Limited/Imperfect Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-One/Indivisible/All-Loving/Self-Sufficient Infinite Perfection)……..
What a fabulous podcast! Just a thought, why is it that only one side is expected to prove their argument? Why is it always us who need to prove that God exists? I think we’re doing a pretty good job at it, though. But shouldn’t it go both ways? Sometimes, they should step up and provide solid evidence to back their claim that God doesn’t exist. Saying “I don’t know” or “it’s beyond my understanding” isn’t proof of God’s nonexistence, it only highlights their own lack of understanding. On the topic of randomness, as a statistician, I can confidently say that there’s no such thing as true randomness in our universe. Randomness means the absence of a pattern, but our universe always operates with patterns, whether in natural phenomena, biological processes, human behavior, quantum mechanics, market dynamics, or even technological failures. If something seems random to you, it’s often because your perspective is too narrow or you lack sufficient data to detect the underlying pattern. Expand your perspective or gather more data, and you’ll start to see the order behind what initially looked like chaos. Everything has a pattern, it’s just a matter of finding it.
Only one side is expected to prove? If you claim flying elephants exist on some planet, how is anyone else supposed to prove that they don't exist. We can only say that we have not seen one. The onus is on you to prove flying elephants do exist. Same with God.
@Seeker-ec1dd Flying elephants? Really? That's quite a leap. The existence of God isn't some random claim about mythical creatures, it's a question that delves into the origins of life, the universe, and everything in it. Comparing God to "flying elephants" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the discussion. If you're so confident that God doesn't exist, why not back it up with solid evidence? Simply saying, "We haven't seen God" isn't proof of nonexistence, it's just an admission of your own limitations. After all, science thrives on discovering things that were once unseen or unknown. Claiming ignorance or relying on strawman analogies isn't an argument, it's avoidance. So if you're going to dismiss the existence of God, at least come up with something more substantive than imaginary flying elephants.
@@Seeker-ec1dd Flying elephants? Really? That's quite a leap. The existence of God isn't some random claim about mythical creatures, it's a question that delves into the origins of life, the universe, and everything in it. Comparing God to "flying elephants" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the discussion. If you're so confident that God doesn't exist, why not back it up with solid evidence? Simply saying, "We haven't seen God" isn't proof of nonexistenc, it's just an admission of your own limitations. After all, science thrives on discovering things that were once unseen or unknown. Claiming ignorance or relying on strawman analogies isn't an argument, it's avoidance. So if you're going to dismiss the existence of God, at least come up with something more substantive than imaginary flying elephants.
We see around us fine-tuned intelligent design. We see the elements of life coming together on our survival. Is this considered tangible evidence for the existence of a creator being? Does legal systems require direct observation of metaphysical entities to prove its existence? In a legal context, it is not necessary to see the Creator to conclude the existence of a Creator being. Courts and legal systems rely on reasoning, inference, and available evidence, rather than requiring direct observation of metaphysical entities. [Source: chatgpt]
Yes of course you should have a podcast regarding life after death..... I want to mention one thing here if we reaponse to atheist argument against God......we must bring up the works of shaitan in this scenario...what u think ?
Exactly they are Shayan’s babies. They always put Muslims in defensive mood. Oh, what about what about this? If God if this if that it is a childish and very very antiquated questions I think no Muslims should get into this kind of argument.
DeGrasse Tyson is so full of himself that it takes him to a level of arrogance that blinds him from seeing his own ignorance. Smart enough to recognize the forest, but too ignorant to see the trees.
@ Neil Drgrasse. It does not make sense to me to argue against the prophet. No man is above or even close to him in knowledge, wisdom and understanding. No man.
This was really hard to watch. There are a lot of statements of opinion and assumption used for a basis for logic in this video. This video almost feels like a straw argument. Atheism feels like another religion, but at least they have the advantage of the scientific method. 27:53 he even suggests we would negotiate with God. I've enjoyed this man in the past, but he was hard work to watch in this one.. Dr Z - you gave better answers to the question posed in the title.
In daily life if somebody tries to help someone or a community, firstly others would appreciate the effort then may come up with some suggestions. If not good enough, some more suggestions to improve it. If still not good enough, that person who doesn't like it or appreciate the effort, must do something different to fulfill the duty. In your case, I am really curious to know : Any suggestions to answer this question more scientifically than they answered? Are you publishing any podcasts that we all can benefit from? If your answers are no! Please be grateful and come up with suggestions, instead of discouraging people who are trying to find Islamic answers to these kind of questions in short cut. May Allah forgive and bless us all.
@johnadam2220 "God cannot be all powerful and all good" is the claim and at 0:26 , and God could have stopped the tsunami (suffering ). If God is "perfect, singular, immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient god, completely infinite in all of his attributes" including mercy - there is no argument save that, is it right to question what such an entity judges as good and bad ? Or more rightly accept that we are too limited to understand ? For followers of Abrahamic Religions, they might question God, but it is right to do so - especially because we're so limited and God is not ? That's my argument - the assertion is flawed because it tries to judge or limit the divine. Further, in the tsunami example, assumes God reacts to nature rather than causes it to be. You can't have a "scientific" approach to God or how God acts and judges.
Sister Zuleyha, would it be possible for you to create videos in the future about Scientific Notions in the Quran? For example, Discovery of the foundational stage in the prenatal development period and Quran 23.14.
Quran acknowledges that intelligent and refined design serves as compelling evidence for the existence of a Creator. سبح اسم ربك الأعلى الذي خلق فسوى *Creativity and intelligent design and fine tuning:* • Creativity and intelligent design: The fly design stunned scientists because developing similar biological fly requires advanced technology. Scientists marveled at the fly’s light engines and maneuvering techniques: They said: "from where did it get this creative concept in the first place?!!" [1] Scientists discovered *how* it works. But *who* invented. There is huge difference between discovery and invention. • Fine tuning: For example, eyebrow hair does not grow but the hair on your head does. There is intentionality. It’s a biased selection not a random selection. [1] Episode title: The Blind Watchmaker. Presented by: Ex-atheist late Doctor Mustafa Mahmoud. Faith and science TV program.
سبح اسم ربك الأعلى الذي خلق فسوى =fine-tuned intelligent design والذي أخرج المرعى فجعله غثاء أحوى = *We are certain that its impossible for the laws and elements of life to come together on our survival naturally unless there is intentionality:* اجتماع عناصر الحياة When livestock pasture withered away, life stopped (meaning Surprisingly, nature had to figure out how to make rain a recurrent process to revive our food chain. Grass/pasture > cattle > mankind constitutes a food chain). The Quran omits the phrase 'life stopped' in verse 4, as its meaning is implicitly understood from the context. This is an example of rhetorical omission. The Quran often uses brevity and omission as a rhetorical device to make the language concise and impactful.
@lhgrandgtr4778 I felt it was a good start. It's like saying, "I don't believe in Santa Clause" and then saying, "If Santa Clause existed, he would live on the North Pole and not the South Pole."
i am only 5:47 mins in but check comments to see if I keep going, knowing the male presentor who has been interesting in the past. I believe in God. He *is* off to a bad start. The apology flash vrs superman is good. @drzuleyhakeskin - i think you have some cognative bias. That said... I'll keep going, but if OP left around 5:47 - I can easily see why..
@@damienhudson8028 My friend, it is obvious you are not well versed in philosophy. Flash and superman are imaginary characters that no one believes. It is for entertainment. While 6 billion people sincerely believe God. What the presenter is saying you cannot compare God to imaginary beings like unicorns. He is also saying, a person who says there is no God, cannot question God’s attributes. It is philosophically invalid to say why God does not act the way I think He should when one does not believe He exists.
@tanerserdar Thank you for your courteous reply. I am a lot better versed in philosophy and religion than comic books, but the point is that to atheists, it's using one falicy to prove another falicy, and hence does not refute the argument of deGrassi. The whole argument is being framed incorrectly- it's being framed by logic not faith.
Sister, a discussion with Dr.Omer on dajjal is need of the time I suppose. My view of the one eye dajjal is that he has only IQ and no EQ...this is what I infer from the one eye of Dajjal. Most probably a creation of Allah who is cyborg. Eager to see an episode on it
The title caught my attention, and I began listening with an open mind. Unfortunately, the speaker opened with a fallacious argument, asserting that an atheist is not in a position to question a God they do not believe in. In contrast, Dr. Tyson's argument is logically sound. He begins with the premise: "If God exists, then He cannot simultaneously be all-powerful and all-good." The "if" in this premise reveals nothing about Dr. Tyson's personal beliefs. Rather, it exposes the contradiction inherent in the concept of any entity being both all-good and all-powerful. Dr. Tyson’s statement stands on its logical merits and remains equally valid, whether proposed by an atheist or a theist.
@JohnSpencer90 the problem with Tyson's argument is that he is making assumptions, or judgements, about what is good. Let me give you an example of what I mean. When my daughter was younger and I would ask her to brush her teeth before she went to bed, she would say "you're being mean to me" and she genuinely meant it. We all know that it's not mean to ask a child to brush their teeth if we know about teeth hygiene. Similarly, labelling something good or evil is not as straightforward as Tyson makes out. It makes many many assumptions, and we're arguing in this video that his assumptions are problematic...I hope you understand my point.
@@drzuleyhakeskin Thank you for engaging. While it's true that people can assign subjective interpretations to some words, to be fair to Dr. Tyson, he provided explicit examples-earthquakes, tsunamis, and floods-that are universally recognized for their negative impact on human well-being. Consider this: if humans possessed the knowledge to prevent or redirect these natural disasters, they would likely use it. God, on the other hand, either lacks the capability to intervene or is indifferent to their effects on humanity.
@@drzuleyhakeskin Thank you for engaging. While it's true that people can assign subjective interpretations to some words, to be fair to Dr. Tyson, he provided explicit examples-earthquakes, tsunamis, and floods-that are universally recognized for their negative impact on human well-being. Consider this: if humans possessed the knowledge to prevent or redirect these natural disasters, they would likely use it. Even in this regard it appears that human love exceeds that of the entity of which you speak.
@JohnSpencer90 in such a case, we are making a human judgement that takes only this life into consideration without any consideration for afterlife, and spiritual life for that matter. If 3 year olds possessed the ability/autonomy to not brush their teeth (going off my previous analogy), 99% would enforce it. I am not saying we are like 3 year olds, but we are like "the children of God" to some degree - our knowledge and wisdom is a fraction of God's knowledge and wisdom.
I am sorry but you are wrong my friend. Dr Tyson’s argument is an agnostic approach where he uses the premise “if God exists” He cannot be both all-powerful and all-good. The first problem: when one says “if God exists” they are implying that they do not know if God exists or not. Then how could they make a judgement about a being that they have no knowledge of? The second problem: if God exists, how is it possible for a human being to decide how God should be? Does an agent who created the entire universe have an obligation to follow the moral standards established by the human mind? The third problem: in philosophy, “if” arguments cannot be verified because they are extremely hypothetical. Therefore, Dr Tyson’s argument is a flimsy argument as it is highly speculative… The reason you find his argument reasonable is: it is like saying “if my auntie had XY chromosomes, she would be my uncle” yes the argument maybe correct when you use “if” but the reality is she does not have XY chromosomes and therefore she is your auntie. So, we need to first establish if God exists or not. If we are convinced He exists then we can talk about why He allows evil on earth…
@@tanerserdar would it matter to you if I did? First here's what NDT said about the topic : ruclips.net/video/bCkROXVT7Zs/видео.html there you will see that they only referred to a Tsunami and started from there. All Tyson was arguing was that God can't be all powerful AND all good at the same time. He's not saying that God should be good or in the absence of God, that life should be fair. In general, the problem of evil goes beyond natural catastrophes which take people lives every now and then (this is, sadly, because some people have the guts to say that a Tsunami which causes hundreds of 1000s of deaths is not that bad :D, e.g. the folks in the above vide). It deals with gratuitous suffering . Like an injured conscious being in the middle of nowhere slowly suffering to death. Here the being is suffering, there is no "human" around to be taught a lesson by watching the suffering (again this is a reference to the people of faith's answer to "why is a child born with cancer, suffers for a couple of years than dies".. of course, for the faithful this is all good, it's for the parents faith to be tested, the baby is going to heaven anyway, the Lord works in mysterious ways). If God is all GOOD and does NOT do anything about events of gratuitous suffering, then the only explanation left is that he CAN'T change the situation and therefore is not all powerful. I guess the faithful needs to choose which one of these attributes of GOD to sacrifice.
@@marouendallali9205 The argument is simple my friend: if you don’t believe God, then you cannot blame God for evil and suffering that exists on earth. Life is short, one way or another we all die. Illnesses, disasters, accidents, they are all reasons. The result does not change, we will all die. If you believe God and life after death where everyone will be compensated for their suffering, it all makes sense. If there is no life after death, then your argument would be valid.
@@tanerserdar seriously? this is what I get? I have not watched the video? As I said.. if I answered would you listen? Obviously you have not or did not want to :). I think I addressed what you asked for in my first response (which I mysteriously can't find anymore) and I stick to it. You're free to reflect on it or not. Briefly again, no one is arguing about what makes sense and what does not. God is free to not be ALL GOOD. Only if there is gratuitous suffering (which I argue there is), then God can't enjoy being all good and all powerful at the same time :). Live long (or should I say short?) and prosper.
@@marouendallali9205 :) You are never going understand because you insist on making standards for God using the mind He gave you. Anyway, this was a waste of time, have good day…
Apologists are remiss that they don't call out Neil Tyson's false histories attacking religion. Christian and Islamic apologists alike. There is Neil's story how Islamic innovation ended when Muslim cleric Hamid al Ghazali proclaimed that math is the work of the devil. Except Ghazali never wrote that, Islamic innovation didn't end with Ghazali and Tyson exaggerates the pre-Ghazali accomplishments giving to Arabs knowledge gathered from other cultures. Christian as well as Islamic apologists should be calling out this slander against Ghazali. There is Neil's story how Newton did all his major accomplishments in just two months on a lark. But then Newton just stopped when he ceded his brilliance to God. Newton made major accomplishments throughout his life and gave glory to God throughout his life. Newton never just stopped as Tyson claims. Islamic as well as Christian apologists should call out Tyson's slander against Newton. And it is a stretch to call Neil an astrophysicist. The man has done very little research.
Subhan Allah. You cannot imagine how many of this 83 year old's questions you have solve. This really is serving Deen e Islam. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, I'll be impatiently waiting for another video with you and the Professor discussing these issue. I'm now going to make notes of these Golden Nuggets. Thanks. May Allah SWT bless you both - Ameen
Let me establish the source of “Transcendental apperception”. Quran(only scripture with 100% preservation/accuracy) says:”Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology(abiogenesis) via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Limited/Imperfect Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-One/Indivisible/All-Loving/Self-Sufficient Infinite Perfection)……..
Sorry this brother failed on his first point by not understanding internal criticism, ie if a belief is internally inconsistent then that can be used to show its incorrectness. So even though Neil d grass does not believe in a God he can look at the belief and internally critic it.
@tanerserdar If the internal critic shows that God can not exist then yes. Just like Allah says he does not have a son, then goes on to say how can he have a son when he doesnt have a wife! And Muslims do it all the time with the trinity showing it as illogical and therefore untrue. I only listened to the 1st point and didn't bother with the rest.
I am sorry brother but you insist on not understanding the premise here. The video talks about a philosophical argument, not internal beliefs. Internal belief does not change the fact that the universe requires an originator. If a person is not convinced with God’s existence, then he should question God’s existence first, not God’s attributes. A person who does not believe God, but questions God’s attributes is a like a individual questioning the attributes of an agent that does not exist. If you think this is logical, no further discussion needed.
@tanerserdar My final reply as we seem to be on different wave lengths and YT is not the best place to tgrash these things out. Discussion of God requires the advocator to define what he means as it is not a universally understood/agreed term. Sorry but originator says nothing as that could be an eternal mindless object which could just be an attribute of the universe. As for God that supposedly has choice and power to control and change things and demand fairness justice and the reality points to the opposite, a chaotic almost everything trying to eat, kill or lean on everything else to survive world shows a major contradiction in that claim of God's being. Trying to prove an originator exists is a philosophical exercise that just gets to a point of we can tell for sure at best.
@muslamicknight9621 Sorry what??? Originator could mean the universe itself? Pantheism? A temporal, contingent space-time originated and designed itself??? No further discussion is needed, take care my friend…
Dear friend, the Holy Quran was revealed in Arabic because the first society who received it spoke Arabic. Just as the Bible was revealed in Aramaic and Torah in Hebrew. How could the people who received these scriptures convey it to others if the books were not revealed in their language? So, you have to analyse these things within historical context. Moreover, there are translations and interpretations of the Quran in all languages of the world.
No human can negotiate with the Creator. Free will is a unique gift which was bestowed upon humans so that they can be free in their actions. You do not negotiate with the Agent who gave you the gift. So, what are you talking about?
This brother can explain things so simple to understand and he does not attack the “ others” but always explains why they are wrong in the most friendly way and full respect. I have never seen this before. Beautiful. May Allah give hem mercy in this life and the next one. Ameen.
@BabaBobo-j8j thank you for your kind words. Ameen.
I really appreciate that y’all made complex subjects easy to follow
You're most welcome 😊
It's absolutely brilliant. Clearly explained and has a nice flow.
Glad you liked it!
Very enlightening discussion.
Yesss love to hear the podcast 🙏🏼
@ozlemnazik9856 noted. Inshallah in the new year...
Thank you so much, both of you, for this very informative and interesting discussion
. another fabulous commentary . thank you both .
Perfect explanation, Thank you prof
i argued with an athiest in high school he was like 'show me the proof that god exist', I said 'Just look around'
my suggestion is to be specific like the Quran does.
Circumstantial evidence or the cumulative effect of evidence in legal contexts. Individually, each piece of evidence might seem inconclusive or weak. However, when combined, the interrelation between these pieces can create a compelling narrative or a strong body of proof.
According to Quran, try to combine the below outcomes using randomness. Its impossible.
• Nature had to figure out how to make rain a recurrent process. scientific term is water cycle
• Rain water could have been bitter, salty, sour, carbonated etc. (nature was biased in its selection).
• Water was preserved in the form of lakes and ponds and underground water.
• Water sewerage system comes in whereby the rivers will transport the water to the sea.
• A barrier prevents salty water from mixing with the river water.
• You throw the inside of dates but in grains you eat the inside and throw the outside.
• Coloration is a recurrent feature in mountains, fruits, plants, people, and animals. Uncolored outcome in a random selection was entirely skipped. Applying the theory of probability, it cannot be other than a biased selection.
• Seed evolved into diversity and variety
• Our digestive system prefers softness, and fruits undergo a natural ripening process.
Milk and meat were necessary for human evolution. Quran wants us to reflect:
• Out of thousands of species that live in the wild, cattle live with us and were made 4 pairs.
• The law of reproduction ensures sufficient quantity.
• Since cow eats only grass, our expectation is that cow's milk should come out mixed with blood and waste and other excretions. Instead it comes out pure white liquid.
• Leveled earth stunned geologists and they gave it the term 'plains'. Why leveled? To facilitate transportation in land.
• Archimedes’ buoyancy law facilitates marine transportation.
• [Newtons law of attraction] prevents the skies from falling.
• We need stars to determine directions.
• The sun rises and sets but the moon does not.
• The moon changes shape but the sun does not.
• We need to calculate time and, surprisingly, moon is an illuminating disc (lunar) that changes shape. it divides our calendar into 4 weeks by giving 4 primary shapes.
• We need daylight to make a living and darkness to rest and, surprisingly, we find variation in the day light in a cycle of 1 day and daylight dims then turns off to be able to sleep well.
In a court of law, this is sufficient (Quantity) appropriate (Quality) proof of a supernatural power. Theist should win a court of law on the grounds of self-evidence. Our expectation is that this power must identify himself, claim ownership of the universe and clarify the purpose of life. In line with our expectation, Abraham’s God made that claim.
Lecture by Al-Azhar school of theology scholar late Mohamed Metwally Al-Sharawy.
Good discussion . I like the way of speech by the physicist 🎉❤
yes, i love the podcast, i like dr atilla's way of explaining things.
@J0314915 Inshallah I can do podcasts with Dr Atilla on a regular basis. He also has a number of talks on the ISRA channel www.youtube.com/@israacademy
Thoughtful and thought provoking, may Allah bless you both, great ending. This is Islam at its best answering the Big questions and connecting us deeply to our Creator
@zak992 Ameen, may Allah swt grant us all a good ending.
Saying that God does not exist because evil exists is a self-defeating argument. Why? Because the moment you label something as evil you are saying that there is a will, a mind behind these actions. In other words, you can only ask the question of evil in a paradigm that God exists. I have shared a more detailed reasoning behind this.
Always eyes AND mouth opening knowledge
SubhanAllah this is very insightful discussion.
@brass_tacks_22 thank you. Dr Omer has an amazing way of articulating these matters. I think I will have regular podcasts with him if he's willing ☺
@@drzuleyhakeskin great idea 👍
Cette entrevue permet de relativiser cette compréhension du sens de la vie.
La vie humaine (75 ans) est vraiment très courte et c'est pour cela que la vie spirituelle est nécessaire. Donc après la mort, notre âme n'est plus limitée avec les contraintes du monde physique: notre âme évolue plus vite et l'objectif à atteindre est claire et rien ne nous distrait. ❤❤❤🙏🙏✌✌
Thanks a lot!
You're welcome!
Just discovered this channel and have subscribed . Jazak Allahu khairan dear sister.
Thanks and welcome
@@drzuleyhakeskin Let me establish the source of “Transcendental apperception”. Quran(only scripture with 100% preservation/accuracy) says:”Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology(abiogenesis) via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Limited/Imperfect Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-One/Indivisible/All-Loving/Self-Sufficient Infinite Perfection)……..
@bluesky45299 well articulated!
It's absolutely brilliant
@MdNazrulIslam-n8s I'm glad you benefitted from it.
What a fabulous podcast! Just a thought, why is it that only one side is expected to prove their argument? Why is it always us who need to prove that God exists? I think we’re doing a pretty good job at it, though. But shouldn’t it go both ways? Sometimes, they should step up and provide solid evidence to back their claim that God doesn’t exist. Saying “I don’t know” or “it’s beyond my understanding” isn’t proof of God’s nonexistence, it only highlights their own lack of understanding.
On the topic of randomness, as a statistician, I can confidently say that there’s no such thing as true randomness in our universe. Randomness means the absence of a pattern, but our universe always operates with patterns, whether in natural phenomena, biological processes, human behavior, quantum mechanics, market dynamics, or even technological failures. If something seems random to you, it’s often because your perspective is too narrow or you lack sufficient data to detect the underlying pattern. Expand your perspective or gather more data, and you’ll start to see the order behind what initially looked like chaos. Everything has a pattern, it’s just a matter of finding it.
Only one side is expected to prove? If you claim flying elephants exist on some planet, how is anyone else supposed to prove that they don't exist. We can only say that we have not seen one. The onus is on you to prove flying elephants do exist. Same with God.
@Seeker-ec1dd Flying elephants? Really? That's quite a leap. The existence of God isn't some random claim about mythical creatures, it's a question that delves into the origins of life, the universe, and everything in it. Comparing God to "flying elephants" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the discussion.
If you're so confident that God doesn't exist, why not back it up with solid evidence? Simply saying, "We haven't seen God" isn't proof of nonexistence, it's just an admission of your own limitations. After all, science thrives on discovering things that were once unseen or unknown. Claiming ignorance or relying on strawman analogies isn't an argument, it's avoidance.
So if you're going to dismiss the existence of God, at least come up with something more substantive than imaginary flying elephants.
@@Seeker-ec1dd
what do you mean by proof?
@@Seeker-ec1dd Flying elephants? Really? That's quite a leap. The existence of God isn't some random claim about mythical creatures, it's a question that delves into the origins of life, the universe, and everything in it. Comparing God to "flying elephants" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the discussion.
If you're so confident that God doesn't exist, why not back it up with solid evidence? Simply saying, "We haven't seen God" isn't proof of nonexistenc, it's just an admission of your own limitations. After all, science thrives on discovering things that were once unseen or unknown. Claiming ignorance or relying on strawman analogies isn't an argument, it's avoidance.
So if you're going to dismiss the existence of God, at least come up with something more substantive than imaginary flying elephants.
@@uthman2281 You are claiming something, you would know what would be the proof.
We see around us fine-tuned intelligent design. We see the elements of life coming together on our survival. Is this considered tangible evidence for the existence of a creator being?
Does legal systems require direct observation of metaphysical entities to prove its existence?
In a legal context, it is not necessary to see the Creator to conclude the existence of a Creator being. Courts and legal systems rely on reasoning, inference, and available evidence, rather than requiring direct observation of metaphysical entities. [Source: chatgpt]
@extraordinary.verses good point
@@drzuleyhakeskin Thank you DR.
Ex-muslim twisted logic: Since Allah is severe in punishment and also forgiving and merciful, therefore he does not exist.
That ansvers are perfect
Yes of course you should have a podcast regarding life after death.....
I want to mention one thing here if we reaponse to atheist argument against God......we must bring up the works of shaitan in this scenario...what u think ?
❤
Exactly they are Shayan’s babies. They always put Muslims in defensive mood. Oh, what about what about this? If God if this if that it is a childish and very very antiquated questions I think no Muslims should get into this kind of argument.
DeGrasse Tyson is so full of himself that it takes him to a level of arrogance that blinds him from seeing his own ignorance. Smart enough to recognize the forest, but too ignorant to see the trees.
It's sad because his only fascination is in pop culture shits. He fried his brains by seeing story by american story makers
I can’t even listen to someone who even thinks he stands shoulder to shoulder with the prophet. (Alayhis salaam)
Who thinks that? Who are you accusing of this?
@ Neil Drgrasse. It does not make sense to me to argue against the prophet. No man is above or even close to him in knowledge, wisdom and understanding. No man.
This was really hard to watch.
There are a lot of statements of opinion and assumption used for a basis for logic in this video. This video almost feels like a straw argument.
Atheism feels like another religion, but at least they have the advantage of the scientific method. 27:53 he even suggests we would negotiate with God.
I've enjoyed this man in the past, but he was hard work to watch in this one..
Dr Z - you gave better answers to the question posed in the title.
At 28:24 the free will example he gave has nothing to do with your misunderstanding of our negotiation with The Creator.
In daily life if somebody tries to help someone or a community, firstly others would appreciate the effort then may come up with some suggestions.
If not good enough, some more suggestions to improve it.
If still not good enough, that person who doesn't like it or appreciate the effort, must do something different to fulfill the duty.
In your case, I am really curious to know :
Any suggestions to answer this question more scientifically than they answered?
Are you publishing any podcasts that we all can benefit from?
If your answers are no! Please be grateful and come up with suggestions, instead of discouraging people who are trying to find Islamic answers to these kind of questions in short cut.
May Allah forgive and bless us all.
what is your argument?
@johnadam2220
"God cannot be all powerful and all good" is the claim and at 0:26 , and God could have stopped the tsunami (suffering ).
If God is "perfect, singular, immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient god, completely infinite in all of his attributes" including mercy - there is no argument save that, is it right to question what such an entity judges as good and bad ? Or more rightly accept that we are too limited to understand ?
For followers of Abrahamic Religions, they might question God, but it is right to do so - especially because we're so limited and God is not ?
That's my argument - the assertion is flawed because it tries to judge or limit the divine. Further, in the tsunami example, assumes God reacts to nature rather than causes it to be.
You can't have a "scientific" approach to God or how God acts and judges.
Sister Zuleyha, would it be possible for you to create videos in the future about Scientific Notions in the Quran?
For example, Discovery of the foundational stage in the prenatal development period and Quran 23.14.
@extraordinary.verses Inshallah will aim to...
Quran acknowledges that intelligent and refined design serves as compelling evidence for the existence of a Creator.
سبح اسم ربك الأعلى الذي خلق فسوى
*Creativity and intelligent design and fine tuning:*
• Creativity and intelligent design: The fly design stunned scientists because developing similar biological fly requires advanced technology. Scientists marveled at the fly’s light engines and maneuvering techniques: They said: "from where did it get this creative concept in the first place?!!" [1]
Scientists discovered *how* it works. But *who* invented. There is huge difference between discovery and invention.
• Fine tuning: For example, eyebrow hair does not grow but the hair on your head does. There is intentionality. It’s a biased selection not a random selection.
[1] Episode title: The Blind Watchmaker. Presented by: Ex-atheist late Doctor Mustafa Mahmoud. Faith and science TV program.
سبح اسم ربك الأعلى الذي خلق فسوى =fine-tuned intelligent design
والذي أخرج المرعى فجعله غثاء أحوى = *We are certain that its impossible for the laws and elements of life to come together on our survival naturally unless there is intentionality:*
اجتماع عناصر الحياة
When livestock pasture withered away, life stopped (meaning Surprisingly, nature had to figure out how to make rain a recurrent process to revive our food chain. Grass/pasture > cattle > mankind constitutes a food chain).
The Quran omits the phrase 'life stopped' in verse 4, as its meaning is implicitly understood from the context. This is an example of rhetorical omission.
The Quran often uses brevity and omission as a rhetorical device to make the language concise and impactful.
You can debate if Flash is faster than Superman. Doesn't mean you believe in their existence. Off to a very bad start.
Flash is not faster than superman 😂 😂 😂
Jokes a side, do you believe flash and superman exist?
@lhgrandgtr4778 I felt it was a good start. It's like saying, "I don't believe in Santa Clause" and then saying, "If Santa Clause existed, he would live on the North Pole and not the South Pole."
i am only 5:47 mins in but check comments to see if I keep going, knowing the male presentor who has been interesting in the past. I believe in God. He *is* off to a bad start. The apology flash vrs superman is good.
@drzuleyhakeskin - i think you have some cognative bias. That said... I'll keep going, but if OP left around 5:47 - I can easily see why..
@@damienhudson8028
My friend, it is obvious you are not well versed in philosophy. Flash and superman are imaginary characters that no one believes. It is for entertainment. While 6 billion people sincerely believe God. What the presenter is saying you cannot compare God to imaginary beings like unicorns.
He is also saying, a person who says there is no God, cannot question God’s attributes. It is philosophically invalid to say why God does not act the way I think He should when one does not believe He exists.
@tanerserdar
Thank you for your courteous reply.
I am a lot better versed in philosophy and religion than comic books, but the point is that to atheists, it's using one falicy to prove another falicy, and hence does not refute the argument of deGrassi.
The whole argument is being framed incorrectly- it's being framed by logic not faith.
Sister, a discussion with Dr.Omer on dajjal is need of the time I suppose. My view of the one eye dajjal is that he has only IQ and no EQ...this is what I infer from the one eye of Dajjal. Most probably a creation of Allah who is cyborg. Eager to see an episode on it
We were actually considering this topic (Dajjal) as well. Dr Omer has some strong views on it 😊 I'll talk to him about it Inshallah.
The title caught my attention, and I began listening with an open mind. Unfortunately, the speaker opened with a fallacious argument, asserting that an atheist is not in a position to question a God they do not believe in. In contrast, Dr. Tyson's argument is logically sound. He begins with the premise: "If God exists, then He cannot simultaneously be all-powerful and all-good."
The "if" in this premise reveals nothing about Dr. Tyson's personal beliefs. Rather, it exposes the contradiction inherent in the concept of any entity being both all-good and all-powerful. Dr. Tyson’s statement stands on its logical merits and remains equally valid, whether proposed by an atheist or a theist.
@JohnSpencer90 the problem with Tyson's argument is that he is making assumptions, or judgements, about what is good. Let me give you an example of what I mean. When my daughter was younger and I would ask her to brush her teeth before she went to bed, she would say "you're being mean to me" and she genuinely meant it. We all know that it's not mean to ask a child to brush their teeth if we know about teeth hygiene. Similarly, labelling something good or evil is not as straightforward as Tyson makes out. It makes many many assumptions, and we're arguing in this video that his assumptions are problematic...I hope you understand my point.
@@drzuleyhakeskin Thank you for engaging. While it's true that people can assign subjective interpretations to some words, to be fair to Dr. Tyson, he provided explicit examples-earthquakes, tsunamis, and floods-that are universally recognized for their negative impact on human well-being.
Consider this: if humans possessed the knowledge to prevent or redirect these natural disasters, they would likely use it. God, on the other hand, either lacks the capability to intervene or is indifferent to their effects on humanity.
@@drzuleyhakeskin Thank you for engaging. While it's true that people can assign subjective interpretations to some words, to be fair to Dr. Tyson, he provided explicit examples-earthquakes, tsunamis, and floods-that are universally recognized for their negative impact on human well-being.
Consider this: if humans possessed the knowledge to prevent or redirect these natural disasters, they would likely use it. Even in this regard it appears that human love exceeds that of the entity of which you speak.
@JohnSpencer90 in such a case, we are making a human judgement that takes only this life into consideration without any consideration for afterlife, and spiritual life for that matter. If 3 year olds possessed the ability/autonomy to not brush their teeth (going off my previous analogy), 99% would enforce it. I am not saying we are like 3 year olds, but we are like "the children of God" to some degree - our knowledge and wisdom is a fraction of God's knowledge and wisdom.
I am sorry but you are wrong my friend.
Dr Tyson’s argument is an agnostic approach where he uses the premise “if God exists” He cannot be both all-powerful and all-good.
The first problem: when one says “if God exists” they are implying that they do not know if God exists or not. Then how could they make a judgement about a being that they have no knowledge of?
The second problem: if God exists, how is it possible for a human being to decide how God should be? Does an agent who created the entire universe have an obligation to follow the moral standards established by the human mind?
The third problem: in philosophy, “if” arguments cannot be verified because they are extremely hypothetical.
Therefore, Dr Tyson’s argument is a flimsy argument as it is highly speculative…
The reason you find his argument reasonable is: it is like saying “if my auntie had XY chromosomes, she would be my uncle” yes the argument maybe correct when you use “if” but the reality is she does not have XY chromosomes and therefore she is your auntie.
So, we need to first establish if God exists or not. If we are convinced He exists then we can talk about why He allows evil on earth…
i have to admit, mrs keskin, you definitely do not have to approve every single word what mr ergi says, by saying 'hmmm' 6 times in a minute
@abdullahok8184 listening back, I was thinking exactly the same thing 🤭 Definitely a note to myself for next time ☺
@@drzuleyhakeskin you are fine, don't worry about it. I found it completely normal.
@dratinite thank you, I appreciate the kind words :)
How convenient to choose a very weak version of the "problem of evil" and answer it (not so brilliantly so).
Maybe you have a better answer? How easy it is to write a comment of criticism without providing a better argument.
@@tanerserdar would it matter to you if I did?
First here's what NDT said about the topic : ruclips.net/video/bCkROXVT7Zs/видео.html
there you will see that they only referred to a Tsunami and started from there.
All Tyson was arguing was that God can't be all powerful AND all good at the same time. He's not saying that God should be good or in the absence of God, that life should be fair.
In general, the problem of evil goes beyond natural catastrophes which take people lives every now and then (this is, sadly, because some people have the guts to say that a Tsunami which causes hundreds of 1000s of deaths is not that bad :D, e.g. the folks in the above vide). It deals with gratuitous suffering . Like an injured conscious being in the middle of nowhere slowly suffering to death. Here the being is suffering, there is no "human" around to be taught a lesson by watching the suffering (again this is a reference to the people of faith's answer to "why is a child born with cancer, suffers for a couple of years than dies".. of course, for the faithful this is all good, it's for the parents faith to be tested, the baby is going to heaven anyway, the Lord works in mysterious ways).
If God is all GOOD and does NOT do anything about events of gratuitous suffering, then the only explanation left is that he CAN'T change the situation and therefore is not all powerful.
I guess the faithful needs to choose which one of these attributes of GOD to sacrifice.
@@marouendallali9205
The argument is simple my friend: if you don’t believe God, then you cannot blame God for evil and suffering that exists on earth.
Life is short, one way or another we all die. Illnesses, disasters, accidents, they are all reasons. The result does not change, we will all die.
If you believe God and life after death where everyone will be compensated for their suffering, it all makes sense.
If there is no life after death, then your argument would be valid.
@@tanerserdar seriously? this is what I get? I have not watched the video?
As I said.. if I answered would you listen?
Obviously you have not or did not want to :). I think I addressed what you asked for in my first response (which I mysteriously can't find anymore) and I stick to it. You're free to reflect on it or not.
Briefly again, no one is arguing about what makes sense and what does not. God is free to not be ALL GOOD. Only if there is gratuitous suffering (which I argue there is), then God can't enjoy being all good and all powerful at the same time :).
Live long (or should I say short?) and prosper.
@@marouendallali9205
:)
You are never going understand because you insist on making standards for God using the mind He gave you.
Anyway, this was a waste of time, have good day…
Apologists are remiss that they don't call out Neil Tyson's false histories attacking religion. Christian and Islamic apologists alike.
There is Neil's story how Islamic innovation ended when Muslim cleric Hamid al Ghazali proclaimed that math is the work of the devil. Except Ghazali never wrote that, Islamic innovation didn't end with Ghazali and Tyson exaggerates the pre-Ghazali accomplishments giving to Arabs knowledge gathered from other cultures.
Christian as well as Islamic apologists should be calling out this slander against Ghazali.
There is Neil's story how Newton did all his major accomplishments in just two months on a lark. But then Newton just stopped when he ceded his brilliance to God. Newton made major accomplishments throughout his life and gave glory to God throughout his life. Newton never just stopped as Tyson claims.
Islamic as well as Christian apologists should call out Tyson's slander against Newton.
And it is a stretch to call Neil an astrophysicist. The man has done very little research.
Subhan Allah. You cannot imagine how many of this 83 year old's questions you have solve. This really is serving Deen e Islam. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, I'll be impatiently waiting for another video with you and the Professor discussing these issue. I'm now going to make notes of these Golden Nuggets. Thanks. May Allah SWT bless you both - Ameen
@MuhammadHannan-x7h I'm glad you found it beneficial, may Allah swt strengthen our faith.
Let me establish the source of “Transcendental apperception”. Quran(only scripture with 100% preservation/accuracy) says:”Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology(abiogenesis) via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Limited/Imperfect Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-One/Indivisible/All-Loving/Self-Sufficient Infinite Perfection)……..
Sorry this brother failed on his first point by not understanding internal criticism, ie if a belief is internally inconsistent then that can be used to show its incorrectness. So even though Neil d grass does not believe in a God he can look at the belief and internally critic it.
@tanerserdar If the internal critic shows that God can not exist then yes.
Just like Allah says he does not have a son, then goes on to say how can he have a son when he doesnt have a wife! And Muslims do it all the time with the trinity showing it as illogical and therefore untrue.
I only listened to the 1st point and didn't bother with the rest.
I am sorry brother but you insist on not understanding the premise here. The video talks about a philosophical argument, not internal beliefs. Internal belief does not change the fact that the universe requires an originator.
If a person is not convinced with God’s existence, then he should question God’s existence first, not God’s attributes.
A person who does not believe God, but questions God’s attributes is a like a individual questioning the attributes of an agent that does not exist.
If you think this is logical, no further discussion needed.
@tanerserdar My final reply as we seem to be on different wave lengths and YT is not the best place to tgrash these things out. Discussion of God requires the advocator to define what he means as it is not a universally understood/agreed term. Sorry but originator says nothing as that could be an eternal mindless object which could just be an attribute of the universe. As for God that supposedly has choice and power to control and change things and demand fairness justice and the reality points to the opposite, a chaotic almost everything trying to eat, kill or lean on everything else to survive world shows a major contradiction in that claim of God's being.
Trying to prove an originator exists is a philosophical exercise that just gets to a point of we can tell for sure at best.
@muslamicknight9621
Sorry what???
Originator could mean the universe itself?
Pantheism?
A temporal, contingent space-time originated and designed itself???
No further discussion is needed, take care my friend…
Madam & Sir, islam has been trapped or caged in Quran's
Arab language games without any escape door.
Arabic is still a used and living language. This is actually a blessing for Muslims.
Dear friend, the Holy Quran was revealed in Arabic because the first society who received it spoke Arabic. Just as the Bible was revealed in Aramaic and Torah in Hebrew.
How could the people who received these scriptures convey it to others if the books were not revealed in their language?
So, you have to analyse these things within historical context.
Moreover, there are translations and interpretations of the Quran in all languages of the world.
At 28:24 the free will example he gave has nothing to do with your misunderstanding of our negotiation with The Creator.
No human can negotiate with the Creator. Free will is a unique gift which was bestowed upon humans so that they can be free in their actions. You do not negotiate with the Agent who gave you the gift.
So, what are you talking about?
@tanerserdar True.
@@djelalhassan7631 🤲🤲🤲
@@tanerserdarprecisely, what is a creator(a creator God , who created universe) in itself ?