DEBATE: IS THERE GOOD EVIDENCE FOR GOD? / Matt Dillahunty VS Abdullah al Andalusi [improved audio] 

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.

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.

to be fair ( even atheists think this too ) Matt is a horrible at debating and uses outdated arguments & logical fallacies.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 🤣

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

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: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vFI6VWrgEXA.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.

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.

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 like a fish denying the existence of water._*

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.

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.

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

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.

Can't wait to see this

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.

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 🤷🏾‍♂️

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.

Matt failed miserabley

JazakAllahu khairan

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.

That program example was one of the most pathetic things I have ever heard from an Atheist.

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")

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.

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!

Commenting for the algorithm

@1:43:30 Matt just admitted defeat. Thank you for this Upload I always learn from you Abdullah.

The forms you were referring are the same as platonic forms, and world of form dependency is it the argument of alghazaly?

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.

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 😂.

Great debate!

JazakaAllahu khayr

Great Debate. Dr Abdullah is legit. ☝️

Thank you brother Abdullah , May Allah reward you home in Jannah.

2:06:26 how can you show that God is all powerful? Perfect answer and analogy in one minute.

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

usually, Matt Dillahunty uses arguments against christians and his supporters hail them as great victory, but Mr. Al Andalusi destroyed Dillahunty. WOW!!!

How can I join your course ?

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?

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.

the argument is on minute 1:05:00 and 1:22:00 and 1:25:00 and 1:27:00

Great debate.

I love how Abdullah gets Matt to subconsciously admit to the existence of God through a Freudian slip at 1:11:06 😂

does anyone else notice that when matt talks the other guy looks like hes browsing youtube. happpens on most of the debates

جزاك الله خيرًا مناظرة مفيدة جدًا استاذنا العزيز 🌹

My guy said scientific evidence for God. Basically asking for a naturalistic explanation for something supernatural.

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.😂

Masha'ALLAH

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?

🤣🤣 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.

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

When causality sneaks in, atheists appeal to magic! How can one not accept that infinite regress is impossible , inconceivable and unreasonable?!?!

I'm not a Muslim but I like Andalusi. Intelligent and thoughtful man. Dillahunty, on the other hand...

46:00 big own goal by Matt

Abdullah Bhai did a great job. This proves that the argument is valid,sound and beautiful

Nice

Asalamu Alaykum Abdullah Allah bless you...

Absolutely a great job Abdullah 👏 Alhamdulilah!

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"

1:04:50 - superb Abdullah!

Is the start of any causal chain due to an intention?

Absolutely

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

What is FIRST PRINCIPLES?

I love you Ustad for the sake of Allah...

You could brought up better counterpoints to multiverse such as model itself has to be finely tuned or inverse gamblers fallacy

Islam so simple

47:03 this is where poor matt lost the debate lol😂😭💀

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.

Dillahunty is ranter

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.

May is arrogant dismissed everything without providing any plausible explanation or proposition.

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!☪️☝🏽😭

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.

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

Alhamdullilah

yes. yes there is

49:30

السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ As-Salaamu `Alaykum wa Rahmatullaahi wa Barakaatuhu

SUBHANALLAH

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.

5:13

1:12:47.. Matt Dillahunty : oh my God! 😁 Instead, he should say oh my atoms/ universe..

Matt, what's your proof we are living on a spinning wet ball?

If I make enough unfounded assertions I prove my case, right?

when the rubber meets the road, the atheists fall back and admit to believing in a contradiction

اللهم صل وسلم على سيدنا ومولانا محمد عبدك ورسولك النبي الأمي وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم

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

Wow, God is a programmer is a new one, what an insanely dumb comparison.

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?

( 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

Deism is awesome

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.

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 😎

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.

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.

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.