Does God Exist?: A Muslim’s Response to Atheism | Dr. Ali Ataie
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 сер 2022
- Dr. Ali Ataie gives spiritual insights about the New Atheism movement (particularly Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett) that has led many believers, including Muslims, to begin to question the existence of God.
- More Dr. Ataie: mcceastbay.org/ali-ataie
Ustadh Dr. Ali Ataie explores three classical arguments for the existence of God from a Muslim perspective as well as an analysis of the claims of the New Atheists.
Dr. Ataie examines the question from three lenses:
1. Moral Argument: Petitio principii. One must first prove that morality is objective and absolute, for this argument to be valid.
2. Kalam Cosmological Argument: Again, petitio principii. Nowhere outside of theology is the premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" found or accepted to be true.
3. Teleological Argument: Argument from analogy
- More Dr. Ataie: mcceastbay.org/ali-ataie
This talk was held at the SBIA Masjid Al-Mustafa in San Jose on October 24, 2014. It was delivered via the Muslim Community Center - East Bay (MCC East Bay) in Pleasanton, California.
- More Dr. Ali Ataie: mcceastbay.org/ali-ataie
Ustadh Ali Ataie is a perennial student and researcher who has been involved in interfaith activities for over two decades. He holds a Masters in biblical studies with a focus on New Testament and biblical languages. He also holds a PhD in cultural and historical studies in religion from the Graduate Theological Union. His doctoral work focused on Muslim hermeneutics of biblical texts, especially the Gospel of John. He lives in San Ramon, CA with his wife Roya and three daughters. Learn more about him at zaytuna.edu/academics/faculty...
More Professor Dr. Ali Ataie videos: mcceastbay.org/ali-ataie
Sidi Ali Ataie studied various Islamic sciences with local San Francisco Bay Area scholars. He is a graduate of the Badr Arabic Language Institute in Hadramawt, Yemen, and studied at the prestigious Dar al-Mustafa, also in Hadramawt, under some of the most eminent scholars in the world. He holds a Master’s Degree in Biblical Studies from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley (Oct. 2011), with emphasis upon the New Testament (he is the first Muslim seminarian in the over 150 year history of the school to earn this degree). He is certified in Arabic, Hebrew, and Biblical Greek, and is fluent in Farsi. He also holds a Ph.D. in Islamic Biblical Hermeneutics from the Graduate Theological Union (Oct. 2016) and is a professor of Arabic, Qur'an, and Comparative Theologies at Zaytuna College, the first accredited Muslim College in North America.
Education: M.A., Biblical Studies, Graduate Theological Union; Ph.D. Islamic Biblical Hermeneutics, Graduate Theological Union.
More MCC East Bay:
Calendar of Events: www.mcceastbay.org/calendar
Weekly Updates: www.mcceastbay.org/newsletter
Support MCC: www.mcceastbay.org/sadaqa
Facebook: / mccpleasanton
Instagram: / mcceastbay
I am so glad Paul Williams aka Blogging Theology introduced me to you ya Ustadh. This was thoroughly informative and entertaining.
🤣🤣. Dr Ali Ataie introduced me to blogging theology lol
@@ferozahmet195
Not sure how I missed him…but he’s truly something else MashaAllah.
Same
0o
Same, amazing.
All these videos of Dr. Ali Ataie may have less views at the present, but his videos are gonna be one of the most sought after one day, for the brilliance in it. Insha Allah. The world needs to see 'em!
May Allah reward him more.
I always wondered why his videos don't get many views🤔🤔🤔 such a brilliant scholar
I always wondered why his videos don't get many views🤔🤔🤔 such a brilliant scholar
Unfortunately today too many people dont like intellectual scholars.
Celebrity Scholars are the preference these days
Please somebody tell Dr Ali Ataie I love his brain. I could listen to his lectures all day, every day! MashAllah he is blessed.
Dr Ali ataie please make sure you give so many lectures that you have learnt in your life so that Muslims youth even after you keep benefitting from them, you are gifted by Allah SWT. May Allah SWT preserve you.
One of the best debaters today, and one of the few to know greek and hebrew
0:23 Presuppositional Theory
1:30 Evidentialism
2:11 Syllogisms
Great lecture! 🐱👍🏿
This is literally the go to video for the atheist / thiest debate.
Moral argument
Cosmological
Teleological
Just one of these arguments is enough to prove the absurdity of atheism. All 3 is a different ball game entirely
May Allah preserve Dr Ali Ataiaie (sorry I spelt wrong because I couldn’t be bothered to lose my comment to confirm the spelling)
You need the contingency argument otherwise you get into a scientific debate about the beginning of the universe. You can see that the cosmological argument is not enough in the debate between sean caroll and WLC. Mohammed Hijab explains this
Infinite regress is easily proven to be a fallacy, and the atheist can only retort with radical skepticism and rejecting the aql.
My favorite scholar. Ma Sha Allah!
Well-articulated Ustadh
What a wonderful video Subhanallah
Excellent video 👌🏼🔥💯
where can i find the presuppositional argument lecture? please.
Arabic caption please and thank you
at 01:25 he speaks of "evidentialism" and says that "So here we're looking for evidence for the existence of god." That's an exact, word-for-word quote.
At that point he turns away from evidence and says, "We're going to use reason, we're going to use philosophy and science. We're going to use deductive or syllogistic arguments that are strictly not theological implications."
And then he completes the turn away from anything like evidence and announces he is going to start with a syllogistic argument.
Wait a moment - where's the evidence he promised? Argument is not evidence. They are not just two different words. They are different concepts. Evidence is facts that can be verified. A syllogism begins with a premise, a statement based upon fact. The second premise of a syllogism is based upon fact.
To proceed with a syllogistic argument without fact based premises is an empty argument. He demonstrates his knowledge of that with the classic P1: All me are mortal P2: Geo Washington was a man. Conclusion: He was mortal.
Fine - until now - while not forgetting he started out claiming to be offering EVIDEENCE for the existence of god, not a lesson in syllogisms.
He then totally abandoned his own promise of evidence and science by offering a so-called 3-premise syllogism - something so rare, so idiosyncratic, so prone to flaws that a 3-promise argument is not called a syllogism by classical philosophers.
All of this diversion serves to bury the promise of evidence.
Hint: he never gets back to offering evidence for the existence of a god. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? Well, if you aren't wondering what happened to the promised evidence, you now are experiencing exactly what happens when you fall under the spell of a cleverly conducted piece of diversion, misdirection and intellectual dishonesty.
He has no evidence for the existence of a god. He doesn't even attempt to define what he means by the word "evidence" because he knows the more deeply he defines evidence, the sooner he will have to admit that assertions are not evidence unless they can be verified. The principles of verifiable evidence are simple.
If an object, force or agency exists in this world, there is verifiable evidence for it. That's how you know it exists. If you can't support the assertion of its existence with scientifically verifiable evidence that can be counted, measured, weighed, predicted, replicated, observed or demonstrated, your claim is empty.
Dr. Dr. Ali Ataie, you said you were going to give us evidence for the existence of a god and use science to do that.
Please tell us exactly what scientifically verifiable evidence you have for the existence of a god in this world. Where are your data?
Part 1 # im a practicing muslim . I do agree with your points. I also disagree with muslims who reject evolution. Evolution is no mentioned in the Quran - nor is this a problem to me - because the Quran says it contains Signs for humanity , it never promised to be a Science textbook for humanity.
However in Islam , religious knowledge is compatible with scientific knowledge. I am sure you have read books on the history of maths and science in Islam which "exploded" roughly 100 to 300 years after Islam spread in the middle east. Many inventors and some mathematicians etc came from muslim backgrounds.
Back then it was common for these great thinkers to also be muslim scholars who studied the Quran and some verses inspired them to explore science, maths, astronomy etc.
Im not trying to be long winded. Just trying to say in the Islamic paradigm - "religion, science, knowledge, " it is connected. It is a different paradigm for Westerners who come from Christian countries - in which the Bible has many scientific contradictions plus the Church used to forbid science & literacy.
That being said - science can only study the natural world, its laws etc. Science by its very nature excludes other sources of infomation.
As human being - we know instinctively that some subjects cannot be measured by empirical data - love, hate, the soul ( consciousness) , the supernatural.
So a sincere scientist will admit that just because science cannot study it - it does not mean it cannot exist. Simply that it is outside the purview of science. And science of course is limited by what we humans can measure and study. Not all information in this universe is quantifiable.
So i think using Science as a yard stick to proof or disproof the existence of the Creator is not logical because science by its very nature HAS to reject any information that does NOT fall in the realm of "natural"
Part 2# in Islam - the Creator is separate from the creation but everything in creation depended on the Creator to come into existence.
The Creator or God - in the Islamic paradigm is separate from this universe/cosmos.
The Creator is pre-eternal- and exists outside of Time and Space.
The Creator has no "ending" and has always existed.
The Creator is Independant and Sulf Sufficient.
The Creator is not a human, we muslims do NOT believe that God created us in His own image.
God is not male or female. God does not have parents or children etc.
God or the Creator is Unique and there is nothing in creation that is like the Creator.
I am sharing these points to higlight to you - why from the Islamic paradigm , the Creator cannot be studied with science. We are talking about a being that beyond the field of science because science is limited to what we humans can study with natural methods.
Im not asking you to agree - simply sharing , because as atheist your assumption is that the Creator must be something that is part of the universe and is a "natural" entity that can be studied. And since you cant study the Creator then you assume there is no Creator.
The reason he’s using syllogisms is because you as well as all atheists deny and don’t accept the evidence even if it hit you in the face like a rock (no disrespect just a saying) he doesn’t have to provide evidence because there’s a whole book with over 500 pages of evidence called the Quran if you read that everything you’re looking for is there but let me guess you have never in your life considered reading it from cover to cover so there for since the atheist relies on his reasoning and intellect so much he’s proving the fact that even with the basic intellect given by god his existence can not be denied that would go against the intellect and all reasoning.
Besides idk what other evidence you’re looking for he’s spitting facts and logic from beginning to end.
اللهم صل وسلم على سيدنا ومولانا محمد عبدك ورسولك النبي الأمي وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم
who on earth set the microphone? This is terrible!
thanks a lot the mice is much better on this one
Sound just like Dr Shabir Ally
This guy was the andrew tate of his time before andrew tate
I am not convinced in the existence of any god for I have never encountered _any_ credible evidence, including _any_ sound argument, that suggests such an existence. Therefore, I will suspend any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god _until_ such evidence or argument is introduced.
Am I not rationally justified in my position?
You're not rationally justified on two accounts:
1. Waiting/searching for empirical evidence (non deductive type) for the metaphysical is like trying to use your eyes to detect sound.
If you reject the above then:
2. You don't have unlimited time to wait for the evidence. Your death will arrive first and you will have to suffer the consequences of your procrastination for eternity.
A thought experiment. A tiny particle in 3D space exists in a location. Space can simply be defined as the six directions (up, down, back, forward, left, right). The particle now moves ever so slightly, and it comes to be in a new location. It's no longer in the old location. Here we have the time factor, the 'then' and 'now' pertaining to the particle's location in space. So let time be defined as the measurement of motion. Let's run that back.
The particle exists in location A. Soon it's going to move and end up in location B. Locations A and B are distinct from one another. The particle needs a location in space to exist in, as (all) bodies require space to exist in. Is the distance between A and B finite or infinite? In theory, it can be infinite, but we're looking at reality now. So let's say that before the particle can reach location B, it first needs to reach the halfway point between A and B. Seems reasonable. Let's call that halfway point A1. Now the same criterion can be applied: before the particle can reach A1, it first has to reach the halfway point between A and A1. Before A2 can be reached, it must first reach A3, and so on. In theory, this division can go on ad infinitum. In reality, however, it seems there's a limit to how many times a distance between two points in space can be divided. This is because the particle can in fact move, and if the distance between its starting point and any other point other than A could be divided infinitely, then the particle can never leave A, because the criterion can never be met. Meaning that it can't end up in B if the distance between A and B is infinite. Meaning that if the number of real locations between A and B is infinite, and an infinite distance cannot be traversed by definition, then B will be forever out of reach. But this isn't just true for B, it's also true for A1, A2, A3, etc. Nomatter how small a scale we're zooming in on, even location A1.000.000.000.000 cannot be reached until A1.000.000.000.001 is reached.
When we're zooming in on locations as we're increasingly dividing the distances between two points, you start to notice that our tiny particle is seemingly increasing in size, and you think this is a glitch in the thought experiment, then let the exact center point of the particle be situated in A, and any movement towards any adjecent point other than A (no matter the scale of the line or size of the particle) would result in its exact center leaving A. That ought to resolve that possible objection.
What we find here is that the particle would become eternally stagnate and locked in place, if distances in space weren't finite. The fact that there is a movement shows that the criterion of having to first reach halfway points cannot go on forever, and therefor, there should be a smallest possible distance that can no longer be divided. Meaning that at some point, there should be a location in space that is distinct from its adjecent location, but there exists no (third) location between the two. They still have to be distinct from one another, or else they would be one and the same location, instead of two. A smallest possible location in space that a particle can exist in, and a smallest possible distance between two adjecent and distinct locations in space that a particle can traverse. So what does this mean?
It means that if we imagine our particle existing in A, and A and B represent the utmost limit on our scale, and there exists no third location in between A and B which the particle could exist in, then as the particle leaves point A, and before it arrives in point B, then "where" is the particle? Asking "where" something is, is asking for coordinates in space, but since there is no location between A and B, then there is no "where". If it comes to your mind that there shouldn't be a timelapse, as I proposed when saying "after leaving A and before arriving in B", then the alternative to that would be that the particle exists in A and B simultaneously, which would effectively result in its movement over these points being observed by us as a straight line in space. After all, what's true in the first instance, would also apply to subsequent stages. Meaning that if it is proposed that the particle's arrival in B coincides with its leaving A, without a lapse in time, then this also applies to when it leaves B and enters C, and so on, which results in a streak through space, as opposed to a particle moving from one location to another, over time. The particle would now exist in all locations simultaneously, past, present and future, and this conflicts with observable reality. Therefor, there must be a timelapse. It must leave location A, then there's a small gap in time, and then it arrives in B. This is how we would actually see the particle moving.
So again, "where" does the particle go during that brief period in time when it's no longer in A, but hasn't arrived in B yet, when there's no third location in between A and B in which the particle can exist? The answer is that the particle vanishes out of existence. It needs a location to exist in, but there is no location for it to exist in, until it arrives in B. It seems that when the particle leaves A, it's annihilated, but then it emerges again in B. But the nonexisting particle cannot have an inherent, intrinsic ability to bring itself into being. Looks like we have an argument here. The emergence of the leaping particle after its nonexistence strongly implies the existence of an extrinsic creator of the event.
Open MS Paint on your computer if you have that. Zoom in as far as you can. Take the line tool and draw a black line from left to right, and make sure the tool draws a line that is one pixel thick. Now you go to the first point of that line and you color the first pixel red. That's your particle. You save the image. For your next stillframe, you color the second pixel in the line red, and you make the first one black again. Your particle starts moving here. Save this image. You continue the process, until the red dot has reached the end of the line, and you then play back all saved stillframes in quick succession. You've made an animation. When the stillframes are rapidly shown, one after the other, the red particle appears to be moving, smoothly, from left to right. In reality, however, it's seemingly jumping from location to location, but there is no real cause and effect occurring between the frames, except that one reality emerges as the previous one vanishes, and every time the red dot changes position. This isn't unlike what was discussed before. A pixel on the screen is distinct from its surrounding pixels, but there are no additional pixels in between two adjecent pixels on the smallest possible level. You have to replay the stillframes in succession, but with a small timelapse separating each frame, or else you would just see a line on your screen that blends the red and black colors, and there would be no single red dot in motion at all.
I believe that this thought experiment applies to all moving bodies in 3D space, and by "body" I mean anything with a size and a shape, large or small, alive or inanimate. Whether it's an atom or a planet, a dust particle or a lion. I believe that the universe and everything in it is in a constant state of emerging and being annihilated, and this happens with extreme speed, and all appears smooth and fluent. After all, the world as it was when you started reading my comment is gone now. The past is gone. It's no longer tangible or observable, you cannot go back, except in an abstract memory. The reality of the world, and how it was, a moment ago, has since gave way to a new reality that we call the present, and the future state of all things is not yet existent or extant. Nonexistence surrounds us from both sides. Therefor, I believe the Quranic statement is true, in which Allah reminds us that He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. Meaning that He creates the universe and everything in it ex nihilo, constantly, and not just pertaining to the beginning of the universe. Meaning that everything is constantly beginning to exist, and since there's a disconnect at a very fundamental level in the material world, then the previous state of things did not cause the current reality, since all of reality and how it was just a moment ago has become nonexistent. Just like how the particle leaving A did not cause its arrival in B, because in between those two realities, the particle was not in existence, and the nonexistent cannot be said to have any influence on anything. Wouldn't this at the very least open the door (for you) to the possibility of there existing One Who creates the world and specifies how it is to be at any point in time?
Not rational at all.
How can you not see that eveything must have a cause.
How do you suppose you become exist?
Did you create yourself?
Or
Did the universe created itself and then created you?
The evidence of a creator is abundance while the evidence of the opposite is very lacking.
You are only justified after you have at least studied all major claimants of the creator
If everything around you and your existence itself is a result of chance and natural processes to you, then no argument will convince you otherwise imo.
Do you have scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
PREDICTION: you will beg the question and/or offer argument, even though this sentence very clearly predicts you will do that.
Well what Dr Ali Ataie has presented is logical, rational evidence for the existence of God. If you cannot accept that and only want observable scientific evidence, throwing the rational/logical evidence out the window and stating that it's not scientifically verifiable, then I don't know what to say.. our scientific methods themselves are our best attempts at understanding the world around us. Just because we have a scientific method, does not mean it is without limitations. As Dr Ali says, what is consciousness? What is emotion? Why does the world exist? These are things our scientific methods struggle to answer.
You wish to observe and measure the infinite? That by consequence wouldn't be Infinite and wouldn't be God.
Let me reverse the question can you give me empirical evidence for the nonexistence of God?
No, of course not cause God can not be measured or encompassed, He encompasses everything.
This question therefore is a logical fallacy.
Look Mr. Harkins, idk if that picture is truly you or not, but if it is you, then you are pretty far into your age, please I recommend you at least read the Holy Quran.
1/4 of the planet are Muslim and believe in this book, it would be wise to atleast give it a chance.
Again you asking for empirical evidence is a logical fallacy, science therefore cannot confirm NOR DENY God.
So if God is real- which I believe He is- and then you after living the remaining time you have, and then return to Him, you will be judged accordingly so please do the wise and sensible thing of giving the Holy Quran a chance and be open minded.
May Allah (SWT) guide you!
self refuting statement, science only verifies the observable universe. According to the scientific theory, the absence of direct evidence doesn't equate to a lack of existence. Why do you assume an almighty God needs to reveal himself to us. Let me ask you one more question, If God is almighty why would he subjugate himself to the lowly existence of his creation?
And how do you rationalize the existence of the universe? Chance 😂? When so clearly there's a design language throughout the entire universe.
If you were sent back to 10000 BC, can you prove that there are atoms? Can you prove that space exists? Can you prove the existence of a universe? Maybe that's a bit too much for someone as ignorant as you, so I'll step it down a notch. Can you prove that there are continents? Can you prove that there were other humans on the other side of the world? While I highly doubt you can even do that, but, can you even prove that the world isn't flat just off the top of your head? Can you prove that the earth is spherical and not a half sphere?
Now let me explain why your original argument is wrong to begin with, though it will probably go over your head anyway.
Science in of itself follows a naturalistic philosophy. Not that you know what that means, but I'll tell you. A naturalistic philosophy means that you presuppose the non-existence of the supernatural. Science in of itself presupposes that there is no God. Which means using "science" to disprove God is a circular argument. Is there proof behind the naturalistic philosophy?
An ignoramus like you will say: "Uh uH wElL M-m-M-muHH ScInCe SaY sO" but how does Science say so? "Uh uH b-B-B-beCaUsE God nOt EvIdEnCe" how is there no evidence for God? "BUh-Buh-BeCaUsE Muhh ScInCe sAy So"
Do you see how stupid you sound? And the irony of you mentioning the begging the question fallacy.
Can you rationally reject god? PREDICTION: you will be forced to assert radical skepticism
Everybody know that an almighty, all knowing, God does exist - what muslim need to know is if Allah the pagan God of the Kaabah is the same as the true God of Abraham.
You've not only insulted Arab Christians who use the name as well as Jews and Muslims. congrats.
Allah is not the pagan god of kaabah, kaabah is not an idol, we don't worship stones, that's not the god of muslims, you assumed a fictitious mental image of God that we do not say, then you attribute it to us, and this indicates that you are not objective. If you had learned the Islamic faith, you wouldn't say that
All semetic languages have the same root word for God
Aramaic: Aalaha
Hebrew Aalaka
Arabic: Allah
So tired of you missionaries regurgitating the same tired old statements.