Hey everyone, first of all, thank you so much for your interest in my videos and your valuable comments. Your feedback truly means a lot to me! Now, I have a question for you: Who would you like to hear in a conversation? Maybe I can bring some of them together in future videos just for you!
Imagine a profound debate between Mulla Sadra, the master of transcendent philosophy, and Ibn Taymiyya, the champion of traditionalist thought. Sadra, with his harmonious blend of metaphysics, reason, and revelation, would present a deep understanding of existence rooted in both intellect and scripture. On the other side, Ibn Taymiyya, known for his strict adherence to scripture and opposition to speculative philosophy, would emphasize a literal interpretation of the texts. Their intellectual exchange would be a dialogue where Sadra’s mystical rationalism meets Ibn Taymiyya’s scriptural literalism. This debate would offer a captivating exploration of two distinct paths to understanding God, existence, and knowledge.
Moreover, Mulla Sadra should be present to Ibn Sina on the matter of المعاد الجسمانی and also to Einstein in order shed light on substantial motion and relativity. Also do present a simulative debate on the problem of evil between Mulla Sadra and Dawkins once again. There is much more to be discussed. Simply, I love you and your creativity. May Allah bless you.
@@genovayork2468nah Michael roose who’s well known atheist he is somebody that said reading Richard Dawkins book the god delusion made him embarrassed to be an atheist also said about him that he would failed at an introductory class of philosophy the problem here is not his science but his overall thinking philosophic
Very true.. Tbh i have nothing against dawkins and in fact i even watches his show sometimes but i just cant see him sit next to ibn rushd.. like seriously! the level + brain IQ aint even the same.let alone close! *Fun part is; Am not even trying to be funny or belittle dawkins..Sorry but reality truth is dawkins simply aint it!
On the contrary, Mr. Dawkin’s point was inside on a short timeframe, Where relevant example was not found. For example: If Mr. Dawkin would have seen 2024 COPA America opening ceremony halftime show with Shakira-a-a, I have a strong feeling, He would have understood many examples in reality. “Date” is really important to portray example or realistic rhetoric. Not as anniversary but as memory.
Great content however, to debate with Ibn Rushd, Dawkins and if I don't exaggerate, tens of Dawkins come together wouldn't be sufficient. I think for Dawkins a normal journalist like Piers Morgan is enough to destroy him in a short TV show.
@@genovayork2468 Michael roose who’s well known atheist he is somebody that said reading Richard Dawkins book the god delusion made him embarrassed to be an atheist also said about him that he would failed at an introductory class of philosophy the problem here is not his science but his overall thinking philosophic
I think that title refers to the supposed incoherence of a book called “the incoherence of the philosophers”, which was a book critical of the philosophers of the time (not philosophy/reasoning per se, the word had a different connotation in the context that the author was using it in). I can easily quote something out of context in a way that makes it sound like gobbledygook, but which is meaningful and instantly understandable to its target audience who have the background knowledge.
@ha.alamin Yeah, the book was a response to Imam Al-Ghazali's book "Incoherence of the Philosophers", which criticises many beliefs that some of the famous Muslim philosophers held which went against the Qur'an and Sunnah.
The example of Ibn Rushd vs Dawkins is like a teacher educating a child about the alphabet. Dawkins is philosophically unequipped to engage in any meaningful discussion with Ibn Rushd. The only relation that can be between the two is the relationship between a master and a pupil.
Imagine a profound debate between Mulla Sadra, the master of transcendent philosophy, and Ibn Taymiyya, the champion of traditionalist thought. Sadra, with his harmonious blend of metaphysics, reason, and revelation, would present a deep understanding of existence rooted in both intellect and scripture. On the other side, Ibn Taymiyya, known for his strict adherence to scripture and opposition to speculative philosophy, would emphasize a literal interpretation of the texts. Their intellectual exchange would be a dialogue where Sadra’s mystical rationalism meets Ibn Taymiyya’s scriptural literalism. This debate would offer a captivating exploration of two distinct paths to understanding God, existence, and knowledge.
@@balachdanish9963 Mulla Sadra, also known as Sadr al-Muta’allihin and Sadr al-Din Shirazi, was born in 1571 in Shiraz, Iran, and rose to become one of the greatest philosophers and mystics in Islamic history. From the outset, he displayed exceptional intellectual ability, studying under luminaries such as Mir Damad and Shaykh Baha’i. While he was influenced by previous giants like Ibn Sina, Suhrawardi, and Ibn Arabi, Mulla Sadra did not merely synthesize their philosophies-he introduced groundbreaking innovations. His Transcendent Philosophy (Hikmat al-Muta’aliyah) revolutionized metaphysical thought with ideas like Substantial Motion (al-harakat al-jawhariyyah), which proposed that all beings are in a state of constant change and transformation, even in their essence. Mulla Sadra’s work was a unique blend of rational philosophy, mysticism, and Shi’a theology. His philosophical system harmonized reason and spiritual intuition, creating a profound and original vision of existence, the nature of God, and the cosmos. His magnum opus, Asfar al-Arba’a is considered one of the most influential works in Islamic philosophy. Alongside this, his books like Shawahid al-Rububiyyah and Risalat al-Mashari wa'l-Mutaraqat display his deep metaphysical insight and innovative thought. Despite facing opposition from conservative religious figures in his time, Mulla Sadra’s works gained recognition, especially in the Hawzah (seminaries) of Iran. Today, his books are taught alongside key mystical texts like Ibn Arabi’s Fusus al-Hikam and Hamza fanaris Misbah al-Uns, with many seminaries placing more emphasis on his works, such as Al Asfar and Shawahid al-Rububiyyah, for their unparalleled depth. His innovations reflect the unique intellectual richness of Shi’a philosophy, which, though less widespread, has produced some of the greatest thinkers in Islamic history. Mulla Sadra is Known as one of the most innovative philosophers and mystics, Sadr al-Muta’allihin passed away in 1640, but his legacy endures, shaping both Islamic and broader philosophical discourse. His contributions transcend sectarian lines, demonstrating that his status as a Shi’a scholar was not a limiting factor but rather a mark of the depth and originality of the Shi’a intellectual tradition.
I enjoyed the fact that a person centuries ago had valid answers because of a simple reason that final Religion never gets outdated .. Also , the height of Immorality is to Not punish the culprit.
A request to create content on the works of Ibn Sina, Farabi and Jabir bin Hayyan philosophy. Such as Sina vs Ghazali vs Sadra (on life after death) Farabi vs Plato (governance) Sina vs Biruni (logic and reasoning) Jabbir vs Sina (on time)
The idea of simulating a conversation between past and present is brilliant. Whilst it is true that if this were a boxing match you were pitting fighters of vastly different weight categories it is nevertheless enlightening in a discussion of this kind. Thank you
Very intresting debate about The God, Morality and Evil. In first debate in Cordoba Dawkins spoke typically like an atheist no doubt. Ibn Rushd was Brilliant in Istanbul regarding Divine Basic Moral Structure fit for all times. Excellent. Regarding debate about evil in Paris, although Ibn e Rushd tried hard to make Dawkins see the wisdom behind every suffering, individual or communal, Dawkins failed to see it and I can understand it because he sees suffering as a human not as a Believer. Good debate.
This video is so freaking amazing I subbed because of it please make more videos like this one what an amazing blend of two completely different personalities showing what unites us and what makes us similar to each other in so many ways using the power of intellect and reasoning
"Suffering is part of the plan!"; what about children who suffered horribly and died still as children? What about animals? Is eternal life also their reward? If suffering is good, then should one participate in afflicting that on others? One might enjoy fiction and could even be moved by it, but thinking that acting a role is the same as reality means confusion is an issue!
21.Al-Anbiyā : 35 Every soul will taste death. And We test you with evil and with good as trial; and to Us you will be returned. 4.An-Nisā : 77 .....\" Say, The enjoyment of this world is little, and the Hereafter is better for he who fears Allah. And injustice will not be done to you, [even] as much as a thread [inside a date seed].\"
"If suffering is good, then should one participate in afflicting that on others?" The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said “Do not cause harm or return harm.”[Sunan Ibn Mājah 2340]. God on the other end is not limited by the moral standard he has set out for us.
Genuinely saying as an Atheist, Dawkins is good for science but please don't consider him for religion. He has very naive view of religion. Hitchens would be better among these New Atheists.
I agree. B. Russell is the last great atheist. 9/11 and the "war on terror" brought the like of Dawkins to the fore. Dawkins and Hitchens are good but not great.
Why restrict it to the new atheists? Cosmic skeptic has a good video on the frequent sophistry of Hitchens. I don’t think any of the new atheists are that good (though I’m not acquainted with all of them). I’ve seen Matt Dillahunty in debate, and he was a disappointment, too. That said, AI ibn Rushd wasn’t that good either. The format is an advertisement for what seems like a book shop. Hardly gonna get the space to really flesh out your arguments and dissect your opponent’s arguments.
To be fair, Dawkins isn't good for science also. He may have become good if he hadn't taken science as a tool to preach atheism and say crap things in the fields of phylosophy and theology. Rather than taking his atheism as a means to be a non-biased rational scientist, which he preaches to be the ideal for society, he did exactly what he condemns religious to do and turned out to be a fanatic biased scientist, therefore engaging in nonsensical theories like egoistic genes and this and that which has nothing to do with biology, being only crappy philosophism.
Many people here are unnecessary discrediting Dawkins without reason. But the reality is he gave a tough challenge to Ibn Rushd. But we should not ignore the fact that all 3 questions debated here were of the nature that "if it can't be proved,it can't be falsefied either' in a paradigm atheist accept. And this nature of questions saved Dawkins and was in his favour. Now lets do a debate on "Claims of Prophethood" of Prophet Mohammad PBUH. Anybody will be blown away in this debate. I still salute Ibn Rushid for being able to stand his ground and offering great resistance in the opponents backyard.
It has served its purpose if it has made any one to think again of his or her uncritically analyzed point of view. Thanks for a good summary at the end.
Many people who have commented here, seem to hold a fervent religious belief in god’s deity, therefore their comments are clearly supporting the narrative of Averose but Dawkins held his ground as well and made reasonable and powerful arguments against the concept of god as well. It was a draw, at best ! The long question at the core is and should be asked often ; Why create a universe in a multiverse with billions of stars and planets within and then create life on one of the planets out of countless of such spheres and then destroy that particular planet after a while and then judge who lived on it by the Devine decrees and who didn’t and then send all to their deserving places as in hell or heaven after the final judgment and watch it play out for eternity for Its own long awaited (assuming) entertainment . What does God want to prove by all these creations/manifestations and destruction,, and prove it to Whom,, the Iblees or Shaitan, who happens to be Its own creation ! Looking forward to reading some learned and thoughtful replies 🙏
@@platorsokoli1706 cuz God created everything and everyone and by looking to how much wisdom and finely tuned the universe is especially when we look at something like our DNA for example it would be stupid if we think that this wise God created us for nothing and give us a mind and instinct that makes us thirsty to worship Him just for nothing God doesn't play dice
Of course you are right. But right only if we consider that Dawkins, like all believers of the empirical sciences as the be all and end all of existence, limits his logic to the temporal world and its laws, never realizing that the very consciousness which enables his own being cannot be explained by his empirical laws, beyond speculation. Science is wonderful within its subset of a much larger reality.
You see brother. You raise a complicated point because your argument is that you doubt God because you don't understand God's logic and don't know even 1% of His creation. With due respect, I must point that it is same as an adolescent who denies his parents guidance based on his own egocentric subjective truths. Salaam
The first argument about god's existence is truly brilliant. Why should you accept that the universe is just there or came out of nothing when an explanation god explanation sounds far more reasonable than other explanation. Of course we can't or test any of these ideas but that doesn't make them invalid
Even if we were to agree on the existence of a creator, one sure fact is that the God of all religions is definitely not referring to the creator. Religion is the dishonest creation of man in an attempt to explain the nature of God. A simple "we don't know" would have sufficed.
common, if Richard Dawkins was a brown Indian for gujarrat, and his name was rakish dipac who graduated from the university of Mumbai, his rhetorical, sophist weak arguments in his god's delusion book wouldn't even cross 10 copies sold.
Look at everyone in the comments glorifying Ibn Rushd without any reference to the content of his thoughts. That tells you what kind of people is this targeted at: ignorant religious people, especially Muslims.
Fine you should listen to the AI generated "conversation". But you don't need to in order to know that Dawkins, a very good science writer and an illiterate in philosophy, is a laughable opponent to one of the greatest minds in human history.
@@b-sideplank Anyone who believes that a 7th century caravan raider was summoned by the creator of the universe and flew to the sky on a flying donkey can not possibly be the greatest mind in the human history. If you disagree, that is fine. Reflects your profound judgement.
@@jmdawlat Ok. I don't think you read prophet Muhammad's biography, other than a few lines by people like Hitchens. So, I don't take your remarks seriously.
@@b-sideplank No. I have read the Quran in Arabic, brother. I know Muhammad’s biography from original sources. I know a lot of details about Muhammad, both good and bad. I was once a Muslim, just like you. But then I started thinking for myself in an honest way. Ibn Rushd was a great thinker for his times. But note how everyone here just glorified him without even making a single reference to the subject matter of his thoughts. Everyone keeps saying how wonderful he was, and that he, at one point had written a book and they know the title. That is the level of discourse and thinking in the Muslim community: Glorify the past without reading, assume that anyone who objects to you is an ignorant enemy of Islam and not an honest critic, and if all else fails pull the Islamophobia card.
@@jmdawlat I have little to disagree that there are many nationalist minded Muslims who cares about their identify and tribal superiority, and to whom truth is not important. There are also many people - if not the majority - within the Muslim community who simply run on automatic mode, who don't think. This is a human problem, not necessarily a uniquely Muslim problem. But of course it does exist. People should engage with honest criticism and not dismiss them. However, I find the characterization of the prophet as a "caravan raider" completely ahistoric and wrong - to clarify where I'm coming from.
Richard Dawkins is primarily a scientist rather than a philosopher; however, he offers compelling arguments that outshine those of Ibn Rushd in this debate. Ibn Rushd tends to reiterate familiar arguments that have been heard for ages, which do not contribute to productive discourse. Modern science emphasizes a pragmatic approach, advancing beyond making claims without evidence and engaging in unfounded speculation.
Disagreeing with your religious views does not imply one has a preconceived mindset. I guess I prioritize open inquiry that emphasizes evidence and critical questioning, while religious belief systems often rely on fixed doctrines.
@@iarian3758 it's great if you have a thinking mind. Islam appreciates inquiry. Quran has multiple times dictated to observe as well as to think. Hence, it tells to delve into science and philosophy both. Only observation is not enough because it has time and space boundaries. Hence, you need philosophical thinking to comprehend metaphysics that goes beyond the bondage of time and space. Can science go beyond the realm of time and space? No, it cant because then it cant observe or bring forth evidence. There are so many questions which can't be answered. What existed before big bang? Who caused big bang? How did the matter, time and space came into existence out of nothing? Science is handicapped to answer these questions.
(≡・x・≡) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
First cause hypothesis is a dead end. Because it assumes that the universe can and is acting by itself here and now. If so, then there is no need a cause for it in the beginning as well. Therefore, the existence of the universe here and now needs to be explained first. What is the source of the existence of ever changing universe as of now? If you give the existence of the moment to the universe itself(the laws) then you really do not need any other agent to explain its existence. But the question is: can the existence of the universe be referred to its own existence as source? The laws are our observations after interacting with the universe. We do not observe the laws as a separate entity other than the universe. Therefore the laws are the way the universe comes into existence. That’s it. We can not refer the existence of the universe to itself. Therefore it must be the act of a Source of existence. The universe itself can not be the actor but an act, it can not be the artist but an art.
Dawkin is unmatched with IBN rushd to compare. Ibn rushd was ocean and Dawkin is boat in vast ocean. So only little tide of ocean can easy turn out the boat.
Dawkins thoughts are so poorly developed. It is as if he is just blind. His rationality does not go deep enough. One can dispense with all of materialism and scientism by destroying one concept. Randomness. There is no randomness in fundamental reality. This can easily be shown. Dawkins is a child compared to Ibn Rushd.
Really good content, can you create a video on abdul qadir gilani or moinuddin chisti,they are quite famous in india ,but there are not a lot of videos on their way of thinking
I, however, do not agree with Ibn Rushd about the concept of morality. Its correct that the human system of morality can be subjective. However, it can be openly criticised and amended. Religious morality, on the other hand, is immutable and, at times, even cannot be questioned.
If this was a real debate I'd say to Dawkins. "The laws of physics are self-sustaining" - Prove to me that laws can sustain themselves. Mr Dawkins you have absolutely 0 evidence of that, yet we have innumerable proofs of God but still reject him. In your own words 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.
Can some one tells me How these talk represent the debater personality? Is it artificial intelligence based or talk represent from their respective books
U^ェ^U We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
نبی کریم ﷺ نے جب سورج غروب ہوا تو ان سے پوچھا کہ تم کو معلوم ہے? یہ سورج کہاں جاتا ہے ؟ میں نے عرض کی کہ اللہ اور اس کے رسول ہی کو علم ہے ۔ آپ ﷺ نے فرمایا کہ یہ جاتا ہے اور عرش کے نیچے پہنچ کر پہلے سجدہ کرتا ہے ۔ پھر ( دوبارہ آنے کی ) اجازت چاہتا ہے اور اسے اجازت دی جاتی ہے اور وہ دن بھی قریب ہے ، جب یہ سجدہ کرے گا تو اس کا سجدہ قبول نہ ہو گا اور اجازت چاہے گا لیکن اجازت نہ ملے گی ۔ بلکہ اس سے کہا جائے گا کہ جہاں سے آیا تھا وہیں واپس چلا جا ۔ چنانچہ اس دن وہ مغرب ہی سے نکلے گا ۔ اللہ تعالیٰ کے فرمان (سورۃ یٰسٓ آیت 38 ) میں اسی طرف اشارہ ہے ۔ صحیح بخاری حدیث نمبر 3199
You think something has to be seen moving to get proof it is moving physically... This hadith is a proof that human have a limited vision and perception and Prophet Muhammad Sallalahu Aly Walye Wassaalam never lied...
I think think Dawkins is getting some unnecessary and undeserved creditbilty by being put up hypothetically against this philosophical gaint..but I enjoyed the discourse
This whole idea is flawed, Mr Dawkins couldn’t even impress his contemporary atheists, how could he actually stand in an argument with Ibn Rushd. As a show, this is entertaining.
This could be better described as an AI-simulated clash of a democrat with a republican (both slightly more educated than the average). Of course, both are wrong. The moral catastrophe of the 20th century was not communism, but capitalism. Fascists learned cruelty from the colonial powers. Yet, this is not what immediately comes to mind of an AI developed in the Silicon Valley.
⊂(^(工)^)⊃ Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.
Atheists are not the ones who invoke nothing, it's theists who invoke nothing. There's not a single theist I've spoken to who doesn't think god can create something from nothing. Personally I don't consider myself an atheist because I think atheists are kind of evolved theists, they kinda have the same perspective as theists. For me I don't even think the conversation is about any god, the conversation is if a man goes in a cave and says he's spoken to the creator of the universe, how do you verify and even worse how do you verify 2000 years later. People say they are talking about god but it's more about placing your faith in man and that is the truth. If religion wasn't about control that would be enough but they don't want to accept that their faith is in the "prophet" or "messenger" they bait and switch to say that their faith is in the creator of the universe which is unverifiable and I don't see why I should trust anyone enough to believe they have ever communicated with the creator of the universe. Heck I find it hard believing someone calling me on the phone trying to convince me they from my utility company 😂
Religion definitely stifles moral progress. Slavery was abolished in many muslim countires just few decades ago so that's definitely hindering moral progress.
@@surendirenparthasarathy9087 It still exists today you know. It just takes different forms. It existed because of morality and money and it was made illegal because it costs too much money and far too many wars. If it was profitable today it would still be happening
what exist before bigbang cannot be considered a question. The way we frame the question because our question is heavily dependent on cause causality chain but before bigbang there is no such thing called spacetime so no cause causality so no before after up down forward backward etc. it's like asking in space where is the north south pole, there is no north or south pole in space it's a planetary thing. so what exist before bigbang is a flawed question itself.
@@NaushadAli-wc4gj says an atheist who also asked "where did God come from?" you literally used the same logic as theists, "asking where did God come from, is an invalid question, "asking what exists before the BigBang, is an invalid question"
@@NaushadAli-wc4gj Really? You want to tell me there was no BEFORE before big bang?????? Big bang must have come from something, bro. Saying otherwise is laughable. Certain factors must have led to the occurrence of Big Bang. It was an explosion.
@@aiya5777 I'd like to clarify that the comparison between the questions 'where did God come from?' and 'what existed before the Big Bang?' may not be entirely accurate. The first question addresses the origin of a deity, which is a complex and abstract concept, while the second pertains to the state of the universe before a specific event, which is a scientific inquiry. Furthermore, the atheist's argument is often more nuanced, using evidence and philosophical reasoning to support their claim that the universe can exist without a beginning, just as the theist claims God can. Also I'd like to clarify that atheists do not demand proof of a hypothetical God(necessarily existence uncause cause whatever that means), but rather, they question the existence of a traditional theological God with complex attributes, desires, and questionable ethical and moral principles. This distinction is crucial, as the former is an abstract concept, while the latter makes specific claims about God's nature and actions. Atheists seek evidence for these claims, which are often based on religious texts, dogma, and cultural influences. Moreover, we often argue that a God with such complex and sometimes contradictory attributes raises more questions than answers, making the concept less plausible.
@@Scott-s5jYes, I'm correct. The misconception about the Big Bang is a major one, and scientists from Richard Feynman to current experts have repeatedly tried to explain it. Despite this, theological schools continue to ask the same questions, even though they're addressed in undergraduate physics courses worldwide, particularly in modern physics sections covering causality, the Big Bang, time, and related topics. It's frustrating when theologians don't understand basic physics concepts. For example, renowned university physics textbooks, widely used for undergraduate students, provide detailed explanations and even dedicate entire chapters to the Big Bang, time, and dark matter. I have no issue with believing in God, but I urge people to use their rational minds. You can take pride in your culture, ideology, history, and ancestors without compromising your rational thinking. In my observation, theology often raises more questions than answers in today's world.
Ah, Dawkins, the self-styled oracle of modern rationalism, parading his atheism as though he’s just returned from delivering fire to humanity. One can almost hear the faint echo of his triumphal footsteps as he dismisses centuries of theological discourse with the air of a man who’s read a book or two and believes himself beyond reproach. Ibn Rushd, by comparison, was merely a philosopher of towering intellect, reconciling faith and reason with a deftness that would no doubt be lost on our dear Richard. Dawkins, of course, would have no need for such subtlety-why engage in rigorous debate when a few condescending tweets will suffice? But alas, while Ibn Rushd’s legacy continues to shape thought across cultures, one suspects Dawkins' musings will be confined to the dusty corners of a few overly earnest cocktail parties.
For thousands and thousands of years theology didn't give us anything but several semi-fictional stories. On the other hand, in just a few centuries science gave us so much knowledge about the world, cures for diseases, organ transplantations, so many useful everyday tools, etc. Theological knowledge is useless.
Well there is a problem here . I recently watched Dawkins and Piers morgan debate and in it Dawkins agreed that there might be a Force but that Force cant be the God of any religion . His problem is with the religion not the Force . It is a fallacy as well but this fallacy should be dealt in a different way . What we can say to Dawkins is that he can not take the example of greek Gods or christian god or hindu god and then paint every one with the same brush . Specifically talking about islam , we dont have those issues that other religions have , so he can not use any Anthropomorphimistic explanation of God and then ridicule all religions including islam , he should also realise that islam doesnt have this Anthropomorphimistic model of God
Dawkins is a quack who does not understand the question he's trying to answer. He'd be forgotten soon once he's gone. No comparison to Ibn Rushd. None whatsoever.
@@surendirenparthasarathy9087 i agree. As far as i understand, when spiritually enlightened, goodness comes naturally and from within. No need for any scripture to tell you not to kill or whatever (most people dont need a scripture for that anymore anyway)
@@CamouflageMaster goodness comes naturally from within and that's how humans are programmed. All the religious scriptures are shaped by the cultural influences and not some divine authority. Countless civilization existed before the two abrahamic dogmas and they have excelled in many scientific field without the dogmas. It is essential for human to critically think and spiritually evolve beyond the dogmas to progress as a society.
￣(=∵=)￣ The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of ''76 by The Alarm.
>゜))彡 Natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is integrity is more important than life otherwise evolution is tragic circumstances with nothing intelligent happening. Almost everyone survive until they reproduce. Nothing is getting selected except for the character flaw in evil. I found a replacement for the character flaw in evil that I liked but God makes me forget things that will cause me trouble.
Dawkins is a clown. He stole all the arguments from William Paley’s the Watchmaker. I have this book now. The Blind watch maker is mostly Paley’s arguments. If one were to use ChatGPT against Dawkins book it will expose him as a plagiarist
Dawkins??? he's too shallow, doesn't even know the basics of theology, how can we learn from someone who doesn't even care to learn the very thing he's trying to criticize?
nothing can create everything vs someone can create everything . one only can be true . nothing is by definition does not exist . so in another words not existing can exist and create all existing things . is just plain stupidity .
Any baby die go straight to Heaven according to Islam . he also can help his parents to enter Heaven . ever baby is a sinner is a Christian thing . Original sin is one of the biggest lie and contradiction in the bible . the son do not bear the sin of the father and the father do not bear the sin of the sin . but all men bear the sin of Adam . Contradiction in Christianity does not exist in Islam .
Hey everyone, first of all, thank you so much for your interest in my videos and your valuable comments. Your feedback truly means a lot to me! Now, I have a question for you: Who would you like to hear in a conversation? Maybe I can bring some of them together in future videos just for you!
Imagine a profound debate between Mulla Sadra, the master of transcendent philosophy, and Ibn Taymiyya, the champion of traditionalist thought. Sadra, with his harmonious blend of metaphysics, reason, and revelation, would present a deep understanding of existence rooted in both intellect and scripture. On the other side, Ibn Taymiyya, known for his strict adherence to scripture and opposition to speculative philosophy, would emphasize a literal interpretation of the texts. Their intellectual exchange would be a dialogue where Sadra’s mystical rationalism meets Ibn Taymiyya’s scriptural literalism. This debate would offer a captivating exploration of two distinct paths to understanding God, existence, and knowledge.
Moreover, Mulla Sadra should be present to Ibn Sina on the matter of المعاد الجسمانی and also to Einstein in order shed light on substantial motion and relativity. Also do present a simulative debate on the problem of evil between Mulla Sadra and Dawkins once again.
There is much more to be discussed.
Simply, I love you and your creativity.
May Allah bless you.
I want this whole discussion written What can be found?If possible send me .Thank you very much.
I would like a debate amongst this giant: Joshua Maponga, Steven Pinker, R.Dawkins and Dr mphumi. They can make a magnificent Combination 💡🤯
Good use of AI, very educational. Although I doubt Dawkins will be discussed 900 years from now as ibn Rushd still is.
Let’s be honest, Dawkins isn’t fit to sit in the gathering of Ibn Rushd
Exactly you mentioned to point where I was supposed to share.
He is fit.
@@genovayork2468nah Michael roose who’s well known atheist he is somebody that said reading Richard Dawkins book the god delusion made him embarrassed to be an atheist also said about him that he would failed at an introductory class of philosophy the problem here is not his science but his overall thinking philosophic
@@mrsolo2859 I hadn't heard of Michael Roose but I had of Dawkins. That he talks about philosophy on it points to being unprepared.
well said!
Dawkins debating Ibn Rushd is like ice spice competing with Mozart.
An insult to Ibn Rushd.
Very true..
Tbh i have nothing against dawkins and in fact i even watches his show sometimes but i just cant see him sit next to ibn rushd.. like seriously! the level + brain IQ aint even the same.let alone close!
*Fun part is;
Am not even trying to be funny or belittle dawkins..Sorry but reality truth is dawkins simply aint it!
Bawan Allah me kak3 anan😂
On the contrary,
Mr. Dawkin’s point was inside on a short timeframe,
Where relevant example was not found.
For example: If Mr. Dawkin would have seen 2024 COPA America opening ceremony halftime show with
Shakira-a-a,
I have a strong feeling, He would have understood many examples in reality.
“Date” is really important to portray example or realistic rhetoric.
Not as anniversary but as memory.
Dawkins is no comparable to great Ibn Rushud
Great content however, to debate with Ibn Rushd, Dawkins and if I don't exaggerate, tens of Dawkins come together wouldn't be sufficient. I think for Dawkins a normal journalist like Piers Morgan is enough to destroy him in a short TV show.
Dawkins won.😊
@@genovayork2468 No 😂😂listen carefully
@@Footballfanxone001 No, listen carefully. 😂
@@genovayork2468 Michael roose who’s well known atheist he is somebody that said reading Richard Dawkins book the god delusion made him embarrassed to be an atheist also said about him that he would failed at an introductory class of philosophy the problem here is not his science but his overall thinking philosophic
@@mrsolo2859 Why would I take Michael Roose's opinion at face value?
Dawkins is an ovverated arrogant science journalist, Ibn rushd on the other hand is an absolute master.
You people didn’t even know Ibn rushd before the Europeans taught you.
@@yj9032 you are out of your mind. Ibn rushd is a celebrated Malik Jurist
@@yj9032Go read books written before even Europe existed. Oh wait, you don’t understand Arabic. Nvm
@@yj9032 prove it. bring your evidence.
Ibn Rushd wrote an academic treatise - incoherence of the incoherence. Unpack that title for a second. Meanwhile Dawkin’s explains the kookoo bird..
I think that title refers to the supposed incoherence of a book called “the incoherence of the philosophers”, which was a book critical of the philosophers of the time (not philosophy/reasoning per se, the word had a different connotation in the context that the author was using it in).
I can easily quote something out of context in a way that makes it sound like gobbledygook, but which is meaningful and instantly understandable to its target audience who have the background knowledge.
@@ha.alamin Maybe one more person will look up and learn :)
@ha.alamin Yeah, the book was a response to Imam Al-Ghazali's book "Incoherence of the Philosophers", which criticises many beliefs that some of the famous Muslim philosophers held which went against the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Dawkings isnt fit be the dust on the feet on the slippers of a learned person.
The example of Ibn Rushd vs Dawkins is like a teacher educating a child about the alphabet.
Dawkins is philosophically unequipped to engage in any meaningful discussion with Ibn Rushd.
The only relation that can be between the two is the relationship between a master and a pupil.
Ibn Rusd is a loss for Spain which does not teach its youth about islamic Spain.
Imagine a profound debate between Mulla Sadra, the master of transcendent philosophy, and Ibn Taymiyya, the champion of traditionalist thought. Sadra, with his harmonious blend of metaphysics, reason, and revelation, would present a deep understanding of existence rooted in both intellect and scripture. On the other side, Ibn Taymiyya, known for his strict adherence to scripture and opposition to speculative philosophy, would emphasize a literal interpretation of the texts. Their intellectual exchange would be a dialogue where Sadra’s mystical rationalism meets Ibn Taymiyya’s scriptural literalism. This debate would offer a captivating exploration of two distinct paths to understanding God, existence, and knowledge.
This is the first time I’m hearing about Mulla Sadra. I will read his works. 👍
@@balachdanish9963 Mulla Sadra, also known as Sadr al-Muta’allihin and Sadr al-Din Shirazi, was born in 1571 in Shiraz, Iran, and rose to become one of the greatest philosophers and mystics in Islamic history. From the outset, he displayed exceptional intellectual ability, studying under luminaries such as Mir Damad and Shaykh Baha’i. While he was influenced by previous giants like Ibn Sina, Suhrawardi, and Ibn Arabi, Mulla Sadra did not merely synthesize their philosophies-he introduced groundbreaking innovations. His Transcendent Philosophy (Hikmat al-Muta’aliyah) revolutionized metaphysical thought with ideas like Substantial Motion (al-harakat al-jawhariyyah), which proposed that all beings are in a state of constant change and transformation, even in their essence.
Mulla Sadra’s work was a unique blend of rational philosophy, mysticism, and Shi’a theology. His philosophical system harmonized reason and spiritual intuition, creating a profound and original vision of existence, the nature of God, and the cosmos. His magnum opus, Asfar al-Arba’a is considered one of the most influential works in Islamic philosophy. Alongside this, his books like Shawahid al-Rububiyyah and Risalat al-Mashari wa'l-Mutaraqat display his deep metaphysical insight and innovative thought.
Despite facing opposition from conservative religious figures in his time, Mulla Sadra’s works gained recognition, especially in the Hawzah (seminaries) of Iran. Today, his books are taught alongside key mystical texts like Ibn Arabi’s Fusus al-Hikam and Hamza fanaris Misbah al-Uns, with many seminaries placing more emphasis on his works, such as Al Asfar and Shawahid al-Rububiyyah, for their unparalleled depth. His innovations reflect the unique intellectual richness of Shi’a philosophy, which, though less widespread, has produced some of the greatest thinkers in Islamic history.
Mulla Sadra is Known as one of the most innovative philosophers and mystics, Sadr al-Muta’allihin passed away in 1640, but his legacy endures, shaping both Islamic and broader philosophical discourse. His contributions transcend sectarian lines, demonstrating that his status as a Shi’a scholar was not a limiting factor but rather a mark of the depth and originality of the Shi’a intellectual tradition.
Ibn taymiyyah isn’t traditional wtf lmfaoo
@@Ibnalwaqtusing wft and Lmao in one sentence just tells me all i need to know. Bye
Humble yourself @@Ibnalwaqt
I enjoyed the fact that a person centuries ago had valid answers because of a simple reason that final Religion never gets outdated ..
Also , the height of Immorality is to Not punish the culprit.
A request to create content on the works of Ibn Sina, Farabi and Jabir bin Hayyan philosophy.
Such as Sina vs Ghazali vs Sadra (on life after death)
Farabi vs Plato (governance)
Sina vs Biruni (logic and reasoning)
Jabbir vs Sina (on time)
Great channel MashaAllah.
Very entertaining and very informative videos.
Thanks 😊.
The idea of simulating a conversation between past and present is brilliant. Whilst it is true that if this were a boxing match you were pitting fighters of vastly different weight categories it is nevertheless enlightening in a discussion of this kind. Thank you
Very intresting debate about The God, Morality and Evil.
In first debate in Cordoba Dawkins spoke typically like an atheist no doubt.
Ibn Rushd was Brilliant in Istanbul regarding Divine Basic Moral Structure fit for all times. Excellent.
Regarding debate about evil in Paris, although Ibn e Rushd tried hard to make Dawkins see the wisdom behind every suffering, individual or communal, Dawkins failed to see it and I can understand it because he sees suffering as a human not as a Believer.
Good debate.
This video is so freaking amazing I subbed because of it please make more videos like this one what an amazing blend of two completely different personalities showing what unites us and what makes us similar to each other in so many ways using the power of intellect and reasoning
Ibn Rushd gave me so much more clarity. And his arguments trump Dawkins even more when you look at the situation of the world in 2024.
Not even close, not once did any of the religious arguments trump Dawkins, that's because religion is made up by men
"Suffering is part of the plan!"; what about children who suffered horribly and died still as children? What about animals? Is eternal life also their reward? If suffering is good, then should one participate in afflicting that on others? One might enjoy fiction and could even be moved by it, but thinking that acting a role is the same as reality means confusion is an issue!
21.Al-Anbiyā : 35
Every soul will taste death. And We test you with evil and with good as trial; and to Us you will be returned.
4.An-Nisā : 77
.....\" Say, The enjoyment of this world is little, and the Hereafter is better for he who fears Allah. And injustice will not be done to you, [even] as much as a thread [inside a date seed].\"
"If suffering is good, then should one participate in afflicting that on others?"
The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said “Do not cause harm or return harm.”[Sunan Ibn Mājah 2340]. God on the other end is not limited by the moral standard he has set out for us.
Genuinely saying as an Atheist, Dawkins is good for science but please don't consider him for religion. He has very naive view of religion. Hitchens would be better among these New Atheists.
I agree. B. Russell is the last great atheist. 9/11 and the "war on terror" brought the like of Dawkins to the fore. Dawkins and Hitchens are good but not great.
Why restrict it to the new atheists? Cosmic skeptic has a good video on the frequent sophistry of Hitchens.
I don’t think any of the new atheists are that good (though I’m not acquainted with all of them). I’ve seen Matt Dillahunty in debate, and he was a disappointment, too.
That said, AI ibn Rushd wasn’t that good either. The format is an advertisement for what seems like a book shop. Hardly gonna get the space to really flesh out your arguments and dissect your opponent’s arguments.
To be fair, Dawkins isn't good for science also.
He may have become good if he hadn't taken science as a tool to preach atheism and say crap things in the fields of phylosophy and theology.
Rather than taking his atheism as a means to be a non-biased rational scientist, which he preaches to be the ideal for society, he did exactly what he condemns religious to do and turned out to be a fanatic biased scientist, therefore engaging in nonsensical theories like egoistic genes and this and that which has nothing to do with biology, being only crappy philosophism.
Many people here are unnecessary discrediting Dawkins without reason. But the reality is he gave a tough challenge to Ibn Rushd. But we should not ignore the fact that all 3 questions debated here were of the nature that "if it can't be proved,it can't be falsefied either' in a paradigm atheist accept. And this nature of questions saved Dawkins and was in his favour. Now lets do a debate on "Claims of Prophethood" of Prophet Mohammad PBUH. Anybody will be blown away in this debate.
I still salute Ibn Rushid for being able to stand his ground and offering great resistance in the opponents backyard.
It has served its purpose if it has made any one to think again of his or her uncritically analyzed point of view.
Thanks for a good summary at the end.
Great video 🎉
May I ask which AI tool you used for the graphics?
Many people who have commented here, seem to hold a fervent religious belief in god’s deity, therefore their comments are clearly supporting the narrative of Averose but Dawkins held his ground as well and made reasonable and powerful arguments against the concept of god as well. It was a draw, at best !
The long question at the core is and should be asked often ; Why create a universe in a multiverse with billions of stars and planets within and then create life on one of the planets out of countless of such spheres and then destroy that particular planet after a while and then judge who lived on it by the Devine decrees and who didn’t and then send all to their deserving places as in hell or heaven after the final judgment and watch it play out for eternity for Its own long awaited (assuming) entertainment . What does God want to prove by all these creations/manifestations and destruction,, and prove it to Whom,, the Iblees or Shaitan, who happens to be Its own creation !
Looking forward to reading some learned and thoughtful replies 🙏
Why do u assume God is trying to prove anything to anyone.
@@platorsokoli1706 cuz God created everything and everyone and by looking to how much wisdom and finely tuned the universe is especially when we look at something like our DNA for example it would be stupid if we think that this wise God created us for nothing and give us a mind and instinct that makes us thirsty to worship Him just for nothing
God doesn't play dice
Of course you are right. But right only if we consider that Dawkins, like all believers of the empirical sciences as the be all and end all of existence, limits his logic to the temporal world and its laws, never realizing that the very consciousness which enables his own being cannot be explained by his empirical laws, beyond speculation. Science is wonderful within its subset of a much larger reality.
You see brother. You raise a complicated point because your argument is that you doubt God because you don't understand God's logic and don't know even 1% of His creation.
With due respect, I must point that it is same as an adolescent who denies his parents guidance based on his own egocentric subjective truths.
Salaam
@@platorsokoli1706
It’s not an assumption, it’s a question
The job of science is answering HOW.
Answering WHY is not the job of science.
Great debate
Lovely debate encompassing agnostic views and islamic believers. Mashallah
The first argument about god's existence is truly brilliant. Why should you accept that the universe is just there or came out of nothing when an explanation god explanation sounds far more reasonable than other explanation. Of course we can't or test any of these ideas but that doesn't make them invalid
Even if we were to agree on the existence of a creator, one sure fact is that the God of all religions is definitely not referring to the creator. Religion is the dishonest creation of man in an attempt to explain the nature of God. A simple "we don't know" would have sufficed.
LLMs really help. AI is a fun enabler of counter factual meetings across time.
common, if Richard Dawkins was a brown Indian for gujarrat, and his name was rakish dipac who graduated from the university of Mumbai, his rhetorical, sophist weak arguments in his god's delusion book wouldn't even cross 10 copies sold.
I like how you leave the arguments open when switching 😊
One mystery we're does our thoughts come from.
Evolution can explain this question.
@@hameedsaleh4800 science facts always changing
@@frederickanderson1860
Facts not changing, but scientific theories and principles are improving..
and this is the beauty of science
@@hameedsaleh4800 dogmatic beliefs in all human societies. Not just in religions
I loved it ❤
Great video. and mind blowing imaginary debate. Salute from Egypt!
Also Dawkins: I am a cultural Christian :)
Keep it up
The instinctive myopic meets the farsighted reason driven by truths
Very nice work
This is pretty good content, you are also using AI tools for graphics and images, nice work ❤
Look at everyone in the comments glorifying Ibn Rushd without any reference to the content of his thoughts. That tells you what kind of people is this targeted at: ignorant religious people, especially Muslims.
Fine you should listen to the AI generated "conversation". But you don't need to in order to know that Dawkins, a very good science writer and an illiterate in philosophy, is a laughable opponent to one of the greatest minds in human history.
@@b-sideplank Anyone who believes that a 7th century caravan raider was summoned by the creator of the universe and flew to the sky on a flying donkey can not possibly be the greatest mind in the human history. If you disagree, that is fine. Reflects your profound judgement.
@@jmdawlat Ok. I don't think you read prophet Muhammad's biography, other than a few lines by people like Hitchens. So, I don't take your remarks seriously.
@@b-sideplank No. I have read the Quran in Arabic, brother. I know Muhammad’s biography from original sources. I know a lot of details about Muhammad, both good and bad. I was once a Muslim, just like you. But then I started thinking for myself in an honest way. Ibn Rushd was a great thinker for his times. But note how everyone here just glorified him without even making a single reference to the subject matter of his thoughts. Everyone keeps saying how wonderful he was, and that he, at one point had written a book and they know the title. That is the level of discourse and thinking in the Muslim community: Glorify the past without reading, assume that anyone who objects to you is an ignorant enemy of Islam and not an honest critic, and if all else fails pull the Islamophobia card.
@@jmdawlat I have little to disagree that there are many nationalist minded Muslims who cares about their identify and tribal superiority, and to whom truth is not important. There are also many people - if not the majority - within the Muslim community who simply run on automatic mode, who don't think. This is a human problem, not necessarily a uniquely Muslim problem. But of course it does exist. People should engage with honest criticism and not dismiss them. However, I find the characterization of the prophet as a "caravan raider" completely ahistoric and wrong - to clarify where I'm coming from.
Richard Dawkins is primarily a scientist rather than a philosopher; however, he offers compelling arguments that outshine those of Ibn Rushd in this debate. Ibn Rushd tends to reiterate familiar arguments that have been heard for ages, which do not contribute to productive discourse. Modern science emphasizes a pragmatic approach, advancing beyond making claims without evidence and engaging in unfounded speculation.
You cant comprehend with a preconceived mind..
Disagreeing with your religious views does not imply one has a preconceived mindset. I guess I prioritize open inquiry that emphasizes evidence and critical questioning, while religious belief systems often rely on fixed doctrines.
@@iarian3758 it's great if you have a thinking mind. Islam appreciates inquiry. Quran has multiple times dictated to observe as well as to think. Hence, it tells to delve into science and philosophy both. Only observation is not enough because it has time and space boundaries. Hence, you need philosophical thinking to comprehend metaphysics that goes beyond the bondage of time and space. Can science go beyond the realm of time and space? No, it cant because then it cant observe or bring forth evidence. There are so many questions which can't be answered. What existed before big bang? Who caused big bang? How did the matter, time and space came into existence out of nothing? Science is handicapped to answer these questions.
Dawkins is a self-proclaimed genius
Your content is very intresting.Graphics,sound and dialogues 👍
(≡・x・≡) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
Awesome... ❤️❤️🔥🔥
First cause hypothesis is a dead end. Because it assumes that the universe can and is acting by itself here and now. If so, then there is no need a cause for it in the beginning as well. Therefore, the existence of the universe here and now needs to be explained first. What is the source of the existence of ever changing universe as of now? If you give the existence of the moment to the universe itself(the laws) then you really do not need any other agent to explain its existence. But the question is: can the existence of the universe be referred to its own existence as source? The laws are our observations after interacting with the universe. We do not observe the laws as a separate entity other than the universe. Therefore the laws are the way the universe comes into existence. That’s it. We can not refer the existence of the universe to itself. Therefore it must be the act of a Source of existence. The universe itself can not be the actor but an act, it can not be the artist but an art.
lv u sir...great work
Dawkin is unmatched with IBN rushd to compare. Ibn rushd was ocean and Dawkin is boat in vast ocean. So only little tide of ocean can easy turn out the boat.
Dawkins thoughts are so poorly developed. It is as if he is just blind. His rationality does not go deep enough. One can dispense with all of materialism and scientism by destroying one concept. Randomness. There is no randomness in fundamental reality. This can easily be shown. Dawkins is a child compared to Ibn Rushd.
Knowledge is sea of wisdom
Really good content, can you create a video on abdul qadir gilani or moinuddin chisti,they are quite famous in india ,but there are not a lot of videos on their way of thinking
They were mystics not philosophers.
I liked the idea and the debate, but man Dawkins does not even deserve to be mentioned alongside Ibn Rushd
It is not becoming of a Muslim to debate theology with an atheist. He can teach, but to debate is in of itself an insult.
Beautiful, Ma Sha Allah... May Allah bless you
I, however, do not agree with Ibn Rushd about the concept of morality. Its correct that the human system of morality can be subjective. However, it can be openly criticised and amended. Religious morality, on the other hand, is immutable and, at times, even cannot be questioned.
Ibn Rushd 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
I was expecting Dawkins' voice.
If this was a real debate I'd say to Dawkins. "The laws of physics are self-sustaining" - Prove to me that laws can sustain themselves. Mr Dawkins you have absolutely 0 evidence of that, yet we have innumerable proofs of God but still reject him. In your own words 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.
Can some one tells me How these talk represent the debater personality? Is it artificial intelligence based or talk represent from their respective books
U^ェ^U We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
Putting Dawkins next to Ibn Rushd is like a 7 y.o. child next to an Einstein for example.
It's insult to stature of ibn rushd if he would have debated dawkins in real dawkins would have accepted reality with his forthcoming generations
نبی کریم ﷺ نے جب سورج غروب ہوا
تو ان سے پوچھا کہ تم کو معلوم ہے?
یہ سورج کہاں جاتا ہے ؟
میں نے عرض کی کہ اللہ اور اس کے رسول ہی کو علم ہے ۔ آپ ﷺ نے فرمایا
کہ یہ جاتا ہے اور عرش کے نیچے پہنچ کر پہلے سجدہ کرتا ہے
۔ پھر ( دوبارہ آنے کی ) اجازت چاہتا ہے اور اسے اجازت دی جاتی ہے
اور وہ دن بھی قریب ہے ، جب یہ سجدہ کرے گا
تو اس کا سجدہ قبول نہ ہو گا اور اجازت چاہے گا
لیکن اجازت نہ ملے گی
۔ بلکہ اس سے کہا جائے گا کہ جہاں سے آیا تھا وہیں واپس چلا جا
۔ چنانچہ اس دن وہ مغرب ہی سے نکلے گا ۔ اللہ تعالیٰ کے فرمان (سورۃ یٰسٓ آیت 38 ) میں اسی طرف اشارہ ہے ۔
صحیح بخاری حدیث نمبر 3199
You think something has to be seen moving to get proof it is moving physically... This hadith is a proof that human have a limited vision and perception and Prophet Muhammad Sallalahu Aly Walye Wassaalam never lied...
I think think Dawkins is getting some unnecessary and undeserved creditbilty by being put up hypothetically against this philosophical gaint..but I enjoyed the discourse
This whole idea is flawed, Mr Dawkins couldn’t even impress his contemporary atheists, how could he actually stand in an argument with Ibn Rushd.
As a show, this is entertaining.
It's like playing chess with a single mind..😊 making both moves solely...
This could be better described as an AI-simulated clash of a democrat with a republican (both slightly more educated than the average). Of course, both are wrong. The moral catastrophe of the 20th century was not communism, but capitalism. Fascists learned cruelty from the colonial powers. Yet, this is not what immediately comes to mind of an AI developed in the Silicon Valley.
And now Dawkins support the Gaza G.
~>゜)ーーー The human body is burly, gnarly and surly like a fractal.
What about law of biogenesis...
Cell can't be made up of random chemical...
Dawkins turned believer now
⊂(^(工)^)⊃ Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.
IBN RUSHD the Sun.. is a Polymath not a simple Philosopher.
Atheists are not the ones who invoke nothing, it's theists who invoke nothing.
There's not a single theist I've spoken to who doesn't think god can create something from nothing.
Personally I don't consider myself an atheist because I think atheists are kind of evolved theists, they kinda have the same perspective as theists.
For me I don't even think the conversation is about any god, the conversation is if a man goes in a cave and says he's spoken to the creator of the universe, how do you verify and even worse how do you verify 2000 years later.
People say they are talking about god but it's more about placing your faith in man and that is the truth.
If religion wasn't about control that would be enough but they don't want to accept that their faith is in the "prophet" or "messenger" they bait and switch to say that their faith is in the creator of the universe which is unverifiable and I don't see why I should trust anyone enough to believe they have ever communicated with the creator of the universe.
Heck I find it hard believing someone calling me on the phone trying to convince me they from my utility company 😂
Religion definitely stifles moral progress. Slavery was abolished in many muslim countires just few decades ago so that's definitely hindering moral progress.
Islam advocates for the freeing of slaves in Quran 90:13. Arabs at the time were acting out of their own selfish desires.
Slavery didn't end because of morality it's not the gotcha you think it is
@@frozone1973 May be in Some countries but it is certainly not back because of morality.
@@surendirenparthasarathy9087 It still exists today you know. It just takes different forms. It existed because of morality and money and it was made illegal because it costs too much money and far too many wars. If it was profitable today it would still be happening
@@surendirenparthasarathy9087 *happening legally. My comments are getting deleted
Ask Dawkins about what was there before the big bang, and watch him fall apart.
what exist before bigbang cannot be considered a question. The way we frame the question because our question is heavily dependent on cause causality chain but before bigbang there is no such thing called spacetime so no cause causality so no before after up down forward backward etc. it's like asking in space where is the north south pole, there is no north or south pole in space it's a planetary thing. so what exist before bigbang is a flawed question itself.
@@NaushadAli-wc4gj says an atheist who also asked "where did God come from?"
you literally used the same logic as theists,
"asking where did God come from, is an invalid question,
"asking what exists before the BigBang, is an invalid question"
@@NaushadAli-wc4gj Really? You want to tell me there was no BEFORE before big bang?????? Big bang must have come from something, bro. Saying otherwise is laughable. Certain factors must have led to the occurrence of Big Bang. It was an explosion.
@@aiya5777 I'd like to clarify that the comparison between the questions 'where did God come from?' and 'what existed before the Big Bang?' may not be entirely accurate. The first question addresses the origin of a deity, which is a complex and abstract concept, while the second pertains to the state of the universe before a specific event, which is a scientific inquiry. Furthermore, the atheist's argument is often more nuanced, using evidence and philosophical reasoning to support their claim that the universe can exist without a beginning, just as the theist claims God can.
Also I'd like to clarify that atheists do not demand proof of a hypothetical God(necessarily existence uncause cause whatever that means), but rather, they question the existence of a traditional theological God with complex attributes, desires, and questionable ethical and moral principles. This distinction is crucial, as the former is an abstract concept, while the latter makes specific claims about God's nature and actions. Atheists seek evidence for these claims, which are often based on religious texts, dogma, and cultural influences. Moreover, we often argue that a God with such complex and sometimes contradictory attributes raises more questions than answers, making the concept less plausible.
@@Scott-s5jYes, I'm correct. The misconception about the Big Bang is a major one, and scientists from Richard Feynman to current experts have repeatedly tried to explain it. Despite this, theological schools continue to ask the same questions, even though they're addressed in undergraduate physics courses worldwide, particularly in modern physics sections covering causality, the Big Bang, time, and related topics. It's frustrating when theologians don't understand basic physics concepts. For example, renowned university physics textbooks, widely used for undergraduate students, provide detailed explanations and even dedicate entire chapters to the Big Bang, time, and dark matter. I have no issue with believing in God, but I urge people to use their rational minds. You can take pride in your culture, ideology, history, and ancestors without compromising your rational thinking. In my observation, theology often raises more questions than answers in today's world.
Ah, Dawkins, the self-styled oracle of modern rationalism, parading his atheism as though he’s just returned from delivering fire to humanity. One can almost hear the faint echo of his triumphal footsteps as he dismisses centuries of theological discourse with the air of a man who’s read a book or two and believes himself beyond reproach.
Ibn Rushd, by comparison, was merely a philosopher of towering intellect, reconciling faith and reason with a deftness that would no doubt be lost on our dear Richard. Dawkins, of course, would have no need for such subtlety-why engage in rigorous debate when a few condescending tweets will suffice? But alas, while Ibn Rushd’s legacy continues to shape thought across cultures, one suspects Dawkins' musings will be confined to the dusty corners of a few overly earnest cocktail parties.
For thousands and thousands of years theology didn't give us anything but several semi-fictional stories. On the other hand, in just a few centuries science gave us so much knowledge about the world, cures for diseases, organ transplantations, so many useful everyday tools, etc. Theological knowledge is useless.
The question raised are the top question always raised by atheist. Dawkins here is a mere pseudo
Not all suffering are random isn't that a flaw in Ibn rushd logic?
Well there is a problem here . I recently watched Dawkins and Piers morgan debate and in it Dawkins agreed that there might be a Force but that Force cant be the God of any religion . His problem is with the religion not the Force . It is a fallacy as well but this fallacy should be dealt in a different way . What we can say to Dawkins is that he can not take the example of greek Gods or christian god or hindu god and then paint every one with the same brush . Specifically talking about islam , we dont have those issues that other religions have , so he can not use any Anthropomorphimistic explanation of God and then ridicule all religions including islam , he should also realise that islam doesnt have this Anthropomorphimistic model of God
Dawkins is a quack who does not understand the question he's trying to answer. He'd be forgotten soon once he's gone. No comparison to Ibn Rushd. None whatsoever.
Why aren't we receiving revelations anymore?
As far as I know people are still getting spiritually enlightened these days, to varying degrees. But they don't call it 'revelations' I guess.
@@CamouflageMaster if we can get spiritually enlightened then there is no need for religious dogma anymore.
@@surendirenparthasarathy9087 i agree. As far as i understand, when spiritually enlightened, goodness comes naturally and from within. No need for any scripture to tell you not to kill or whatever (most people dont need a scripture for that anymore anyway)
@@surendirenparthasarathy9087 maybe you assumed i'm a religious person, which i'm not
@@CamouflageMaster goodness comes naturally from within and that's how humans are programmed.
All the religious scriptures are shaped by the cultural influences and not some divine authority.
Countless civilization existed before the two abrahamic dogmas and they have excelled in many scientific field without the dogmas.
It is essential for human to critically think and spiritually evolve beyond the dogmas to progress as a society.
Dawkins? Come on now! The guy is walking contradiction!
Feels like an insult to ibn rushid
￣(=∵=)￣ The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of ''76 by The Alarm.
>゜))彡 Natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is integrity is more important than life otherwise evolution is tragic circumstances with nothing intelligent happening. Almost everyone survive until they reproduce. Nothing is getting selected except for the character flaw in evil. I found a replacement for the character flaw in evil that I liked but God makes me forget things that will cause me trouble.
Saw the title, came straight to comments to disapprove of this heavy weight(Ibn rush) being pitched against a weasel.
you should have used a teenager's voice for Dawkins voice
(=^ェ^=) Its intelligently designed that if you master evolution it just makes you a baby doctor.
But Richard Dawkins is not a philosopher, and he barely knows the intricacy of philosophy.
I’ve read ibn rushd and thus doesn’t sound like him one bit
Who is this Dawkins. Saboor is waiting in speakers corner
Dawkins is a clown. He stole all the arguments from William Paley’s the Watchmaker. I have this book now. The Blind watch maker is mostly Paley’s arguments. If one were to use ChatGPT against Dawkins book it will expose him as a plagiarist
This match up doesn’t seem fair oof
Dawkins??? he's too shallow, doesn't even know the basics of theology, how can we learn from someone who doesn't even care to learn the very thing he's trying to criticize?
nothing can create everything vs someone can create everything .
one only can be true .
nothing is by definition does not exist .
so in another words
not existing can exist and create all existing things .
is just plain stupidity .
The epicentre of stupidity (Richard Dawkins) and the pedestal of philosophical genius ( IBN Rushd) . Sorry, one can’t imagine them debate each other.
Any baby die go straight to Heaven according to Islam .
he also can help his parents to enter Heaven .
ever baby is a sinner is a Christian thing .
Original sin is one of the biggest lie and contradiction in the bible .
the son do not bear the sin of the father and the father do not bear the sin of the sin .
but all men bear the sin of Adam . Contradiction in Christianity does not exist in Islam .
Paris in IBN RUSHD time was a dirty place full of rats the paris you know is from the 19 century.