Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Muslim Destroys Atheism (Logical Proof for God) 6 min

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

I don't believe this classifies as destroy. We Muslims have a red line which the atheist don't have. In this video Hamza says the question of who made God is not a fair question. That's not destroying atheism, that's saying you can't ask me that question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I prefer the Avicenna’s Proof of the Truthful argument over this Kalām cosmological argument, as you don’t need to prove the universe began to exist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, pakistanyar said:

Hamza says the question of who made God is not a fair question. That's not destroying atheism, that's saying you can't ask me that question. 

Hamza never said, "that's not a fair question" or "you're not allowed to ask me that question"...rewatch the video...it revolves around the question of infinite regress and the necessity of having a prime mover or initial cause in order to start off creation

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Hamza never said, "that's not a fair question" or "you're not allowed to ask me that question"...rewatch the video...it revolves around the question of infinite regress and the necessity of having a prime mover or initial cause in order to start off creation

 

I know what he said, it was a poor answer with the weirdest analogy ever. " If I want to shoot you but I have to ask the person above me for permission". The point was he was belittling the question with an odd analogy, instead of being honest and just stating the Muslim precondition to this argument. I'm Just starting to read up on these arguments. I'm glad someone posted the Ibn Sina argument, thanks for posting. 

Edited by pakistanyar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
17 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

@313_Waiter, Avicenna was an Ismāʿīli Shi'i (fun fact) :)

I’ve heard there’s some controversy about his sect

Quote

Medieval historian Zahir al-din al-Baihaqi considered Avicenna to be a follower of the Brethren of Purity ( an Islamic secret society for the Batiniyyah Philosophers) On the other hand, the Shia scholars Nurullah Shushtari and Sayyed Hussein Nasr have both maintained that he was most likely a Twelver Shia. Dimitri Gutas, who has spent considerable amount of his research effort on the Arabic philosophical tradition, refuted both these claims and stated that Avicenna was a Sunni Hanafi based on the fact that two of his books were dedicated to Hanafi scholar al-Baraqi, and that Avicenna earned his living in the Hanafi court of Ali ibn Mamun. However, another theory proposed by the late philosopher and thinker Professor Henry Corbin considered that Ibn Sina, just like his father, was himself an Ismaili. [1]

Sunni Scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah and Al Ghazali considered Ibn Sina or Avicenna to be a follower of the Batiniyyah Ismailis and Philosophers as well while Ib Al Qayyimconsidered him to be a follower of the Batiniyyah Qarmatians ( Sub Ismaili branch ) [2] [3]

About himself Avicenna said : “My father” was one of those who had responded to the invitation of the Egyptians [The Fatimids] and was counted among the Ismailis.” Avicenna in his retold biography says that he used to listen to his father and brother discussing the soul and the intellect after the manner in which they [the Ismailis] expounded them. [1]

So he was likely a free spirited Ismaili free thinker , maybe he used Taqyiah ( dissimulation ) for a while since his region was dominant Sunni [4] [5]



https://www.quora.com/Was-Avicenna-a-Sunni-or-Shia-Muslim

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The speaker was a run-of-the-mill fast talker. He did not use any argument/statement that will withstand scrutiny.

For example, never does he acknowledge 'inductive logic'; nor does he refer to genealogical/hereditary principles.

Not worth 6 seconds, much less 6 minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

The speaker was a run-of-the-mill fast talker. He did not use any argument/statement that will withstand scrutiny.

For example, never does he acknowledge 'inductive logic'; nor does he refer to genealogical/hereditary principles.

Not worth 6 seconds, much less 6 minutes.

I think it is because he is essentially trying to reach the younger audience, if he would use verbose terminology or critical philosophical argumentation, he would most likely lose the majority of his audience and in giving a moderate response to a dilemma everyone faces in their lives, he intended to place a source for them to propel themselves forward with.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
46 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

We had in high school inductive and deductive logic. And elementary students understand Mommy an Daddy each had another mommy and daddy and so on.

I think he is being considerate of the intellectual decline that came with post-modernism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 2/22/2021 at 9:09 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

@313_Waiter, Avicenna was an Ismāʿīli Shi'i (fun fact) :)

Salam he wasn't  a Ismaili which according Ayatollah  Makarem  Shirazi he was a shia but 

 

8 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

About himself Avicenna said : “My father” was one of those who had responded to the invitation of the Egyptians [The Fatimids] and was counted among the Ismailis.” Avicenna in his retold biography says that he used to listen to his father and brother discussing the soul and the intellect after the manner in which they [the Ismailis] expounded them. [1]

he didn't  accept  Ismaili  belief but in other hand he has knew Umar wiser than Imam  Ali (عليه السلام) like Zaidis at his time but also he didn't  belive that Imam is ' riser with  sword" which he has had a belief that if Imam not appointed  by legislator then Imam mut be appointed  by " council of Hil & Aqd" or "Assembly  of experts" so we cannot  say with certainty  which he was Ismaili or Zaidi.

https://makarem.ir/main.aspx?typeinfo=44&lid=0&mid=394638&catid=27795

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@313_Waiter in book of "A'yan al-Shi'a " by al-Sayyid Muhsin al-Amin  , Aviecenna has mentioned  as a Twelver  Shia .

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa22530

https://en.wikishia.net/view/A'yan_al-Shi'a_(book)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 2/22/2021 at 12:19 PM, pakistanyar said:

I know what he said, it was a poor answer with the weirdest analogy ever.

You're absolutely clueless...this shows me you're not well-read on the subject...the "gun shooter" is a commonly used analogy when discussing infinite regress and the Kalam cosmological argument...from a popular website

"The ‘infinite regress’ argument posits that we cannot have an infinite amount of preceding events or causes. For if we have an infinite amount of preceding events then we can never get to where we are now, that there must ultimately be a ‘first cause’ or ‘prime mover’. An example that has been used to explain the problem is that of the soldier waiting for orders to fire.

If we imagine a soldier waiting for orders from the soldier before to fire at the enemy. The soldier at the front asks the soldier behind if they have permission to fire. That soldier then asks the soldier behind them, then that soldier repeats the same process. Eventually we must come to a soldier that gives permission to fire, otherwise the soldier at the front of line would never be able to fire. There must be a soldier who is the ‘first cause’, the one that gives permission to fire.

This argument is then transferred to the beginning of our universe by creationists. The claim is that we cannot have an infinite amount of preceding events that led to ‘The Big Bang’, otherwise ‘The Big Bang’ would never have happened as we would be caught in ‘infinite regress’. The argument is also used when addressing the question of ‘Who created the creator’. That there cannot be a creator to the creator, otherwise we are forced into another ‘infinite regress’. Does positing a God ultimately solve the problem of ‘infinite regress’ though?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 2/22/2021 at 8:59 PM, Mohammad313Ali said:

because he is essentially trying to reach the younger audience,

I agree...program was obviously geared to younger viewing audience

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@313_Waiter, I always thought he was an initiate of Ikhwān as-Ṣafā...I stand corrected...thanks for correcting me.

@Ashvazdanghe, found this on Wikipedia..."A number of theories have been proposed regarding Avicenna's madhab (school of thought within Islamic jurisprudence). Medieval historian Ẓahīr al-dīn al-Bayhaqī (d. 1169) considered Avicenna to be a follower of the Brethren of Purity. On the other hand, Dimitri Gutas along with Aisha Khan and Jules J. Janssens demonstrated that Avicenna was a Sunni Hanafi. Avicenna studied Hanafi law, many of his notable teachers were Hanafi jurists, and he served under the Hanafi court of Ali ibn Mamun. Avicenna said at an early age that he remained "unconvinced" by Ismaili missionary attempts to convert him. However, the 14th century Shia faqih Nurullah Shushtari according to Seyyed Hossein Nasr, claimed he was a Twelver Shia. Conversely, Sharaf Khorasani, citing a rejection of an invitation of the Sunni Governor Sultan Mahmoud Ghazanavi by Avicenna to his court, believes that Avicenna was an Ismaili. Similar disagreements exist on the background of Avicenna's family, whereas most writers considered them Sunni, recent Shiite writers contested that they were Shia."

Edited by Eddie Mecca
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
Quote

1) everything that begins to exist has a cause.

a) There is no “causality”.  There are patterns of things associated with other things, but no causality between them.  It is merely a superfluous concept.  

2) The universe began to exist.  
this is by no means “obvious” and highly susceptible to doubt.  In fact we don’t even know what the universe truly is.  If we don’t know what it is, how can we even be sure it began?  Maybe we know only a part of the universe that began and not the whole of it.  

The universe is having a heat death and dying out and by that we know that it began and isn't eternal. If it was eternal the heat death would have happened a long time ago lol. However this is the only logical explanation materialists have left that it is eternal. 

as for the point of casuality even those things that are compound need each of its part to work. And in no circumstance have we ever seen that something created itself or a dead body getting motion without an external influence

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Here is a firing squad of scientists shooting down atheism. Each one of these has several videos. My personal favorite is David Berlinski.

These are all very fun to watch especially because Berlinski is a teacher of english language as well so he does it like a sir.

Its so much fun when other scientists give it to em with so much style and solid scientific or mathematical arguments. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...