I'm majoring in Anthropology with deep interests in the subject but the only thing that strikes me is how the discipline accepts Darwinism as some sort of fact and then goes on studying hominids without telling us the flaws in their process. This talk helped me a lot in understanding Darwinism in a new way and also clarifying the flaws in it. Jazak Allahu Khayrun
Fuad Zia It’s good that you’re searching/investigating the information for yourself instead of accepting the secular teachings in schools. Most people (mainly atheists) accept Darwinism without understanding it to a significant extent. JazakAllahkair
I've just watched this video, so apologies for commenting to you 2 years after you watched it yourself, but I read what you said and I'm genuinely interested to see if you still hold the view that there are flaws in - and I'm going to correct your terminology - evolution theory?
@@bengreen171 i hope so because if the covid situation didn't open them to the reality of evolution i think nothing will at that point , but its a matter of time since people are moving away from literal understanding of Islam , the same thing with Christianity and most people well just be Muslim by name and not act out their beliefs , which is better than nothing. ik this wasn't helpful but i saw the noti and I was bored.
Alhamdulilah, those videos of atheists attacking Islam were a catalyst for many Muslims to start learning about their Deen. My interest in science in the past had been to achieve a good station in life, but now it changed to learn about the creation of Allah and how to implement that knowledge to help people. "Indeed, those who came with falsehood are a group among you. Do not think it bad for you; rather it is good for you." Qur'an (24:11)
If we make a car , one of the four wheel became damage we cannot drive. God created humans with legs arms and eyes . We can see men without legs hands and eyes but they live happily.
@Mellow Jam Earth is not paradise. Allah gave us this exam for winning paradise. You can choose wrong or right options. If no suffering in this life then what is the purpose of paradise?
@Mellow Jam could you please expand your argument. Allah has to create all human being and animals and plants in same shape or form and in same place and time . No suffering no deaths. Otherwise you can point out injustice and suffering in everything. If you see injustice and suffering in this world means there must be a her after with perfect justice.
@Mellow Jam Allah will not punish us because we are blind or with out leg or hand . He only give us reward or punishment what choice we made in where we have a choice. He will not punish me because I Born in India or England. If I have choice in something and I have capability and capacity then I am responsible for that.
@Mellow Jam it's all a test we all get a choice to do bad or good if we do bad it's not on Allah, instead of being a salty Islamaphobe why don't you leave us alone.
Something that was really amazing to me, is that how is an insect conscious of plants to take the exact same forms ? Leif insects are amazing ! Sob7an Allah ! Only Conscious beings would understand that indeed there a Creator. if this is passed unnoticed to some beings that's because they are either unaware of its existence (which are animals that are actually fooled by the camouflage), Or Beings that are aware of its existence yet do not approve of it as a miracle or a clear evidence that there is a Creator (Atheists humans). so those Atheists rather fall on the side of ignorance making it seem a coincidence therefore they are as dull as those animals who passed it unnoticed. I'm pretty sure an Ant is unaware of the fish in the sea... and also the fish are unaware of the ants... but they are surely both aware that there is a creator who created them just this way.
The atheist was obviously doing an internal critique of Islam, which claims intent within the universe. This Muslim is sadly unfamiliar with that rhetorical technique or feigned ignorance of it in order to dodge the atheist's question. If this is what qualifies as "brilliant" among Muslims it explains why they win so few Nobel prizes.
I’ve been trying to get closer to Islam because its doctrine makes more sense compared to others and I have many questions regarding that. Quran makes it clear that the sole purpose of human beings is to worship Allah. But in this case, we can tell that Islam holds back scientific progression of the world as its prime message is worshipping Allah and everything else doesn’t matter. So, if the whole world becomes muslim oneday, science would never never progress as from an Islamic perspective, living in stone age doesn’t really make a difference as long as we worship Allah.
Gaining knowledge and seeking it is part of worshipping Allah. Worshipping Allah does not exclude the gain of knowledge. In fact, if u write a scientific book or any other book that is useful to mankind or even to one person then until people stop getting usefulness from it u will get your reward. U see : worshipping Allah does not only mean : make your prayer, fasting, giving charity etc...... Worshipping Allah is more profound and more fundamental then that : having sex with your wife is a worship of Allah, eating healthy food is a worshipp of Allah, once again : gaining knowledge is part of worshipping Allah. In fact people of knowledge are one of the best and most pious people. Knowledge gives you a better understanding of who Allah is and how magnificent and great he is. And from this you will love him even more and want to be closer to him. For exemple : As Allah said in the Quran chapter 3 verse 18 : Allah ˹Himself˺ is a Witness that there is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him-and so are the angels and people of knowledge. He is the Maintainer of justice. There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him-the Almighty, All-Wise. U see what Allah said when he talked about the witnesses from mankind ? he said : people of knowledge. Not any people.
_"The universe dosen't display intent"_ _"Therefore it is not created"_ I don't know of a single individual who says this, fyi. A better and more nuanced representation would be: _"The universe doesn't appear to exhibit intent."_ …OR... _"It's unreasonable to infer intent behind the universe in isolation without knowledge of an intender."_ _"Therefore, it is not reasonable to conclude it was created."_ (Note that this doesn't equate to concluding it therefore *wasn't* created)
@@Chaosism My english isn't that great But thanks anyhow Point being the speakers are suggesting that it is not accurate or consistant for a materialist to make reference to intention or purpose the point of the argument, is to suggest that the universe along with what ever it contains is not designed or intended for any particular purpose that would be expected from a all powerful all knowing Perfect and loving creator. All the suffering and randomness, the chaos the violence, unfairness injustice etc Is better in line with with a materialistic atheist view point. (From thier own point of view) I personslly don't see the inconsistency in thier argument
@@raheedrm The atheist is pretending that he knows the WHOLE picture, which he obviously doesn't. He is not taking into account a larger purpose: that there may be an afterlife when things will be balanced, etc. Also the atheist's argument is moot. How can the atheist deny a Creator simply because he doesn't understand the purposes of creation? Just because there is suffering? All this could possibly do is alter someone's view of God, but it's not a sufficient argument against the existence of God and actually has nothing to do with it. If a person believes in the existence of God but then labels God to be immoral, that is just arrogance and ignorance (and basically disbelief according to Islam)- he's pretending his wisdom and knowledge is beyond God's. This is just an emotional and manipulative argument from the atheist.
@@cyclonemt 100 % 👍 How and why should anyone other than the creator know the reasons for all things? As believers we need only sufficient enough information to be completely convinced of allah's existance without doubts Nobody ever claims to know the reasons and intentions behined everything in creation Its perfectly reasonable to say allahs knows best. It is nothing but arrogance on the part of atheists to argue that unless everything is known by them and in accordance to thier criteria then they will reject the notion of a creator as what he has created is judged to be wrong. Thats the problem when the only thing you will worship is your own ego and desires
I will inshallah have a top notch body in jannah, this one now it’s just so I’m not attached to it too much, it will irritate me a little, make me want better, carry me a little!
The atheist argument mentioned is an argument from ignorance and the simple answer is ignorance does not entail non-existence. In other words, you not knowing the purpose doesn't mean that there is no purpose. Another way to answer it is that randomness does not exist in the real world until you have every single factor in your knowledge. Randomness only exists as a concept but not as a reality (if we speak on the same terms)
Ma sha Allah, that was amazing! My question is whether you could elaborate even in future videos about the fact that you have this apparent "tension" between for instance the organism wanting to preserve itself with the "lines of defence" Br Abdullah spoke of in the video, and the so-called "errors". I think what doesn't click to the atheist is related to this tension. You addressed this point in the video but a bit of a deeper exposition would be GREAT. May Allah reward you, salam alaykum.
I feel this argument can be extended to include Muslims who argue against evolution using these very same terms. They say: 'Since evolution is said to include random elements and since mutations are said to be mistakes we must disavow evolution. It is not compatible with Islam!' My response to them is that this is poor reasoning. There is nothing within the theory itself that tells you this or that thing is an error or is random. That is an interpretation that people impose on the theory. Incidentally, these Muslims don't reject radioactive decay although that is also said to be a random process.
I would reject evolution On the basis that it is the religion of the materialist atheists It begins with a big bang from nothing That springs the universe into existence without the need of a creator Followed by a process of the formation and the death of stars that supposedly creates the elements Then changing natural conditions in the universe and on earth that create life And from a single common ancestor Based upon a natural selection of genetic mutations you have all the different species including modern man This is what people mean when they say "we don't believe in god we believe in science " The complete narrative is fictitious A to z There is no proof of the the creation of DNA, for example, from nothing but natural occurrences under varying conditions of any kind And no proof of the 1000's of variations of life forms on earth as a result of a natural selection of mutations of DNA Just wistful thinking of disbelievers that muslims are attempting to incorporate into islam So the point is why do you believe? The burden of proof is surley on the proponents of the theory to proove thier case.
Gravity made me bang my knee and cry, therefore God cannot exist, since a Merciful God would not have made gravity that would cause me and many others to bang our knees. --> Is this a sensible argument??? Whatever more sobering example you give, will still ultimately be you arguing with the natural consequence of either physics or of free will.
Android Phone , four of us are heading to the beach, the way to the beach one of us asks to stop on the way and grab some items , such a surfing board, Goggles, Swim Caps, Swim Vests.,Fins, Earplugs, Nose Clips, Bags, Gloves.,We conclude that the only shop for swimming items is located at the beach itself, yet our friend wants to buy the items on the way!
Mateen I mean, it’s a metaphor about life, and you don’t actually remember this, but I found out way back, I’m certain about this, that you agreed to settle close to the beach., you wish got granted, but now your winning about the items you want, we are all telling you there is a shop located at the beach but you are insisting on having them items here and now, you are acting as if you want to jump out of the running vehicle, wait!, I’m saying to you: patience my friend, patience!
Mateen me and Android phone were having a nice conversation by using metaphors, his ability to use metaphors and attract people is Gold, he can do better 🤣, so I liked his comment so much that I made my own metaphor, it is about the life of a human, the beach is a metaphor for the afterlife, you agreeing to settle close to the beach” agreeing represents your humanity and closeness to the beach represents your fragile life, or simply said death 💀 😆 , the items represent perfection which we all as humans crave for, heading towards the beach means your time here. , which metaphor did you like more ? his or mine🤣
When you're attempting to respond to opposing arguments, you have to present and work with an example of said argument from one who is actually forwarding it. The consistent failure to do this in these latest videos has lead to a pattern of blatant strawmanning. As one example of misrepresentation: the use of anthropomorphic language that implies intent (e.g. "natural selection", "the body wants to...") does not mean that intent is actually being ascribed or postulated. Human beings naturally understand and follow language like this far better than cut-and-dry technical language, and so it finds its way into all kinds of language as a natural consequence. For example, my last sentence anthropomorphizes the language with "it finds its way" which clearly isn't some claim that it possess some kind of volition. The same can be said with the majority of this kind of language about all manner of things. Again, please have a representative or real example of the arguments that you're addressing so you don't strawman and mislead your audience, because that's exactly what you're doing.
2:59 Describing something as an imperfection is nowhere near being anthropomorphisation. This is poor. 3:55 English features something called figurative language. When Dawkins coined the title 'The Selfish Gene' he wasn't literally saying that genes have intent in the _same way_ that humans do, same goes for similar descriptions of the Universe, chemistry etc. To accuse people who use figurative language as _misattributing intent._ This is either ignorant or disingenuous. You point to barren women in relation to imperfect design. The standard that we look for is very, very obvious. Simply ask yourself, "What is a womb's function"? It's function is to carry babies to term. If it cannot perform its function, what exactly is the problem with calling it imperfect? None. 10:33 If atheists regularly assert that your god intended to create "paradise" on Earth, you need to find better atheists to mix with. That's not something I've heard an atheist ever assert. I've heard them _ask why_ a god wouldn't or couldn't create a paradise on Earth but that's not the same thing. 13:33 Wrong. An equivocation fallacy is when a person attempts to mislead by using a term in different ways without clarifying which definition is intended in the scenario. But that is not what you described. You described an atheist & a Muslim both using the word 'perfect' but with different meanings. This is more accurately described as 'talking past each other', which is why it's best to clarify definitions in debates.
Which method has a more reliable method to truth? The scientific method (proof, evidence, reason, logic) or the religious method (blind belief. Believe what you are told to belief)? Be honest with your answer.
Science is not the only way to prove something We can use Logic as well as testimonies to infer I say if going from atheism point of view that universe started by nothing from nothing by nothing that means no one was there to create something out of no where ? Is it a sound thing to hear? NO right ? Let's assume someone says that this universe existed from eternity. Then there comes argument as all the beings or things in this universe depends on something irrespective of time then what are they depending upon? They should be depending on some independent, right? And that Independent entity is called as God. Next thing why do people reject things that they can't prove or disapprove as false? Isn't it against the basic concept of Science ? Isn't this just a way to delude themselves that they are right and other people are false based on their two faced judgement?
@@reshailraza514 Please read the last 5 words of my comment. You are clearly not addressing my question, you seem to purposely evade what I am asking and attempting to change it into some nonsense which has no grounds. I ask again; Which method has a more reliable method to truth? The scientific method (proof, evidence, reason, logic) or the religious method (blind belief. Believe what you are told to belief, do not ask questions, do not criticize, do not think rationally). Please try again.
This really wasn't brilliant 😕 it was a masterclass of misrepresentation and devious playing with language. Plus, god is a 'he' and this pair understand 'his' intentions.......OK, right.
السلام عليكم: جزاك الله خيرا على هذا الجهد الرائع. وددت لو التزم الأخوة الدعاة بالكتاب والسنة عند الحديث عن الله تعالى بأسماءه وصفاته وأفعاله فلا يقال مثلا الله ينوي God intends بل يقال الله يريد أو يشاء. هذا الخطأ و مثله يحدث كثيرا في فيديوهات الدعوه باللغة الإنجليزية و نريد لها ألا تحيد عن النهج الأمثل لتبلغ دعوة الله على الوجه الأتم. أسال الله لكم دوام التوفيق.
There’s nothing brilliant about this. He can’t even characterize the biologists question correctly, so everything that follows is a straw man fit for his rebuttal.
7:28 how do you know how god intended life to exist? How are you privvy to this information? How do you know it isn't longevity, as your previous point seems to dismiss? You guys make so many arguments on the basis of your "truths" which are mere opinions.
@@Cheximusits somehow harder for you to look at the quran as being the true word than taking for true the word of scientists in the last couple of decades.. with theories that can be disproven at any time.
