It seems to me that emergence destroys the argument of the necessity of a unique necessary cause .

this argument is based on inductive knowleduge and thus lets refute it by its essence 1- we say every contingent thing has a cause based on our induction but if we are precise. every contingent thing we observed has a contingent cause so if I say that every contingent thing has a CONTINGENT cause that would be equally if not more accurate and this alone turns the argument on it's head 2- necessary existence poses a model collapse . god has libertarian free will so he cant be necessary 3- god can be imagined to be otherwise . since they define everything that can be otherwise as contingent thus that would render their sky daddy also one . i can imagine an omni dreadful spiteful god as much as they define an omni loving one .both have equal evidence 4- why cant the universe be necessary ? and ik most ppl will point at stars and planets etc but all of that is matter rearranging it's self. so that's really not an argument . besides , one has to prove that time , space and the universe had a beginning to place any weight 5- consciousness can not be none physical . demonstrate a mind without a brain or else its fiction 6- assuming god butchers occams razor

I'm disappointed that you removed comments that simply doesn't agree with the argument

@@alcubz2622 I don't remove comments.

@@LetsTalkReligion mine wasnihed tho lol

true

😂

Damn @RealKengeki I never thought I'd find another with such similar interests

I hate rust crates

Brainy Smurf voice- "But Papa Dawkins said... Season 2, Episode 206, blah blah blah..."

Not really lol lots of philosophers used those techniques before Ibn Sina

@@bthanb1223 lmao fair enough

These are ancient techinques, ibn sina is not that acient

It has been that way since Socrates and Plato

Indus Valley civilisation used that even before

And yet these pagans and atheist dislike this simple concept of One God,Genderless,And immortal And even mocking him as skydady,which is nonsense,God is Above anything and they compare him to a dady? beacuse he use he/him pronouns in English?and They also mocked him for being stritch about Creation,like he the one who created us and it make sense us to follow his laws

I was charmed by this surah when I was a child. It was so clear back then and still is now.

@@LailaAhmed-re5co Surah AlIkhlas and Ayatul Kursi never fail to touch the heart of a person seeking the truth about Allah.

Whats the wisdom behind jahannam ?

@@Some_Deist The only way to have absolute justice is to have heaven and hell and an afterlife, if the case is otherwise death is nothing but an escape to evil doers, do you think people like Hitler (regardless of what he did was factual or not) would just get away (by dying) with everything they committed ?

​@@AhmedN.-ky8ii India was China's teacher in religion and imaginative literature, and the world's teacher in trigonometry, quadratic equations, grammar, phonetics, Arabian Nights, animal fables, chess and philosophy." - The Wisdom of China and India Lin Yutang, p. 3-4 ~ The Arabs derived technical guidance in every branch of study such as astronomy, mathematics and physics from India. A noted scholar of history, W.H. Siddiqui notes: “The Arab civilization grew up intensively as well as extensively on the riches of Indian trade and commerce. Nomadic Arab tribes became partially settled communities and some of them lived within walled towns practised agriculture and commerce, wroteon wood and stone, feared the gods and honored the kings.” ~ Arabic medicine was founded on the translations from the Sanskrit treatise, made by command of the Kaliphs of Baghdad, 750-960 AD. European medicine, down to the 17th Century, was based upon the Arabic; and the name of the Indian physician Charaka repeatedly occurs in the Latin translations.” ~ Sir William Hunter, British Historian.

I find it funny because if nothing existed there would be nothing at all.

​@@AhmedN.-ky8iican you describe something that is not from a human perspective ? You cannot do this, so the above quote is still valid. How can one think from another's perspective ? If one tries to do so, it is merely them guessing how they would think so

why there is something rather than nothing leibniz psr

Why is that strange?

Even if there was an objective proof for a god, there can't be for religion, since it could be a different way. Thus, no logical proof except direct evidence of its originator can verify religion.

@@WurstelFestchen don't worry, there are additional arguments for the veracity of Islam, for example. Once you establish God, you can establish that Muhammad is a Prophet of God or that the Quran has a divine origin. No need to rush :)

​@@JustinHerchel well say one of them

@@WurstelFestchen There is no objective proof for anything. Humans don't naturally operate on skepticism unless they have other reasons influencing them to doubt. That's not a valid excuse to not follow a religion in my opinion but it depends on the person and what they know really.

​@@bornawatermelon5807 So you believe that a "necessary existence" is there, and want to simply know its attributes?

"the thing for which there is no known maker" - non stamp collector

Plato and Aristotle were the first to posit this principle.

​@cartesian_doubt6230 Of course, he didn't come up with this ideas from nowhere. His philosophy is the continuation of the Aristotelian school of thought.

Why does it matter who was first? They were just first in writing how do you know that someone else by oral tradition posited before them but how would you know.

Lol, alot of Medieval and Renaissance culture was casually influenced by Islamic culture which is very seldom mentioned.There was even Arabic translation academies, such as in Salerno, Kingdom of Naples. Things such as European food culture has alot of Medieval arabic influence even today.

Judaism as we know it today has taken a lot of believes from Islam as well. The true monotheistic view of Jews is something taken by Islam when they lived in Muslim lands for 600 years after being thrown out of Spain. The is a 3 hour long debate here on KZfaq called Judaism vs Islam. Daniel a Muslim student of Islam debating Rabbi David in a wholesome debate actually. It becomes apparent very fast how much Judaism has been influenced by Islamic beliefs

But our culture bombed by european culture + internal issue.

@@Carloshache Even Spanish, around 8% of Spanish words come from Arabic due to Muslims controlling Spain for hundreds of years

This thinking isn't overly complex and plenty of people would have come to the same conclusion. This is the very reason why I believe in God, it's irrational not too. No one told me this theory, I worked it out myself

I agree with you. Most “Muslim scholars” are like most Iranians today, heretics who hid their disbelief because of their fear of the death penalty...

@user-ct9mf4dr5o Most of them were from Iraq(Bagdad) not Iran .

@@top10thingintheworld29 Iraq then, like today, was under the influence of Iran and there were many Iranians there..in fact, the Iraqis themselves had more Iranian blood than Arab blood lol

@@user-ct9mf4dr5o Before Cyrus(Kurus) persia had small kingdom . Iraq has blood of ancient Babylonians . Not Arab or Persians.

@@top10thingintheworld29 There are millions of Kurds in the north, and let us not forget that central Iraq is made up of Arabized Persians and Kurds. Arab tribes are present in the south..

He was wicked

​@@ezpz9340care to explain? I've heard he likes drinking wine but I don't know if it's true or not

@@mabokmicin He might have used the term "sharab" in his medical texts to refer to various medicinal drinks or syrups. His works, including "The Canon of Medicine" (Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb), discuss the use of various substances, possibly referred to as "sharab," for their therapeutic benefits.The word "sharab" in Arabic and Persian can indeed mean "drink" or "beverage" in general, not specifically alcoholic beverages or wine. However, in modern usage, especially in Arabic, "sharab" often refers to alcoholic drinks. In Ibn Sina’s context, stating that he discussed "sharab" or drink special "sharav" should not be taken as an indication that he specifically meant wine or other alcoholic drinks unless explicitly noted within that specific historical and textual context.

@@AliAzar1The man denied that Allah had all knowledge, which is clear kuffr. He had good and bad we should take good and leave bad.

He was not Muslim lol..Like many Iranians today, he was hiding his disbelief...​@@AliAzar1

Same ^

Noticing your interest in knowledge, I'd be happy to assist you with any inquiries you might have about that.

dude..basicly all religions relate to Abrahamic..or u can say he is The Father of believers Oneness. you just dont know yet...and people corrupt the religions except Islam whics is being Preserved by God himself.

​@@funzuno8639 Right. Allah wrote all about Alexander the great. Also, if 'Abraham' is the father of religions, why do the Persians predate Avram? How about the Egyptian Religions, like Atenism? All before your rock-slave-moon religion existed.

@@bobSeigar you forgot hinduism

​@@InsertYTHandleHere never cook again please 😂

@@InsertYTHandleHere did you watch the video? It literally said that that the universe itself can’t be God because universe as a whole consists of dependent matters and to be whole depends on its parts. God is outside the universe and is not bound by time and space like the universe is.

⁠@@edilbekabdyrakhmanovtime and space are an illusion of our being. The universe is not bound by time and space, we and our perceptions are bound by time and space. Causation itself is an illusion as a result of how we experience time and space, and even further the tendency to identify things or parts is just that, it’s a tendency of the human animal mind. It’s simply how we perceive the universe and ourselves, but the universe itself is not as simple as this. Pantheism is certainly the greatest of all philosophy regarding the existence of God.

@@XxOursChannelX4875 change is an illusion my friend. We experience change because we experience time - we are mere animals. But for the universe/god there is no change.

@@Minyvan66 exactly

I was wondering, do Iranians acknowledge their Persian roots or waves of islamic invasion have encapsulated them well in a Stockholm syndrome?

⁠@@mreverything1354are you going to make a logical argument or just say buzz words in hopes that you sound like you’re making one?

@@blueierblue4499 you want to pretend like you didn't understand the query and worm your way out to evade it or can you provide a credible response without getting butthurt?

@@mreverything1354 this video was about one of the greatest scientists of all time (Avicenna), who was a Muslim, Iranian Persian. So you see, these qualities don't oppose each other! Quite the contrary actually... hope this helps your little islamophobe brain😉😂

@@mreverything1354 NO we persians iranians love and proud of our heritage and certainly acknowledge it the reason our ancient believes ad culture has surviced to this day is bc of us persian people resilience you see in our history as well so many foreign dynasties but same people in all history

I wonder what Dawkins' is doing nowadays. Has he, too, fallen into right-wing fascist apologia? It seems like a natural progression for these fools.

​@@hududiyyathat makes no sense. Dawkins is far too left wing for that?! The weirdo can't even understand the difference between theory and fact. Typical trait of a leftie..

​@@hududiyyahe calls himself a "cultural Christian," which basically means that he only tolerates white people

You are using an argumentative foul and you know it. All ad hominem attacks are fouls.

@@Kamamura2 “argumentative foul,” 😂😂😂😂. Where do you see the OP even implying that he is making an argument?

I think you mean "penchant" or "interest." The word "kink" always carries a sexual connotation. The mistake is quite understandable.

congratulations - you just pointed out some flaws in Ibn Sina's argument. if you're unsure why, think about what you said about God's attributes. Now think about why Ibn Sina claimed that there could be only one creator, and what the video says about the totality of the universe, and why it cannot be a necessary being.

@@bengreen171 already profusely elaborated above on it being necessary and there you go concluding the opposite. At least argue properly.

@@asrulismail1513 ok, maybe you didn't understand my comment. The video claimed that a necessary being cannot be made of parts. An Attribute is a part - think about yourself. You might be tall, but that's not your whole being. You might be kind, but that is not your whole being. Tallness and kindness are attributes you possess. So if the OP is correct to say that "Allah created us to show us his attributes and his mercy" - it means that Allah has more than one attribute. If Allah has more than one attribute, he has more than one part. And if Allah has more than one part - according to the video, he cannot be the necessary being.

Waiting for when he finally responds to this

@@inadequateavian211 He won't - because he knows it points out a massive flaw in his argument.

Interesting

Aristotle and Anselm were the first two I thought of.

Ibn Sina was a Peripatetic philosopher through and through so yes it is highly inspired by Aristotle

@@firstgayincel Neoplatonism is to be considered as an overlap between Peripatetic/Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy If you read the Enneads by Plotinus you can see the merger between them , and regarding Avicenna he must have read translations of Neo-platonic school assuming that ( as If ) it concerned with Aristotle's philosophy , I know this because I have read some old Persian translations of supposedly Aristotles works which are actually interpretations of Gnostic writings expounded through Aristotelian logic .

Yes, Ibn Sina was most likely influenced by Aristotle's argument(s). He was Aristotelian, after all.

If you use this argument towards the Christian God you will only prove that he doesn’t exist. So it is very absurd to use this argument if you are a Christian theologian

@@YahwehEloh You mean, because of the trinity?

@@ayudroid3568 Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t make it illogical.

@@YahwehEloh Funny how most secularists behave as though once they've poked holes in Christian theology it means they've somehow claimed victory for atheism, when in fact, for atheism to to truly dominate, ALL conceivable gods from EVERY theological position, whether pagan or otherwise, must be proven unequivocally nonexistent, not merely the Christian position.

@@mugsofmirth8101 I didn’t say anything about what you wrote. I just said that it is absurd to use this argument to prove the existence of Christian God. And yes you can see from my nickname and my profile picture that I’m not an atheist

*" being a humble random noname, see it rather as “everything around” in itself, "* You make the same error as point 2 [ 7:30 ] By claiming that _'everything around'_ = the set of all contingent things, is in itself necessary. The Necessary being/entity/thingamajig, must be external to the set of contingent things, and since it cannot be an impossible thing (since impossible things cannot exist) , that means it must be the necessary thing, which is outside the set of contingent things... i.e. external to creation. GOD is not Omnipresent in the sense of being within / a part of the contingent set (the universe and everything around), instead we say God is omniscient and aware of of everything + Omnipotent, able to affect everything everywhere., without getting mucked down by being a part of everything. _check out & ponder upon Sura Ikhlas_

I am not sure if it is a sin (ism) to doubt, but every time I have a doubt, I know it is because of my lack of knowledge and my imperfection.

​​@@saeadborji1464I think it's the right mindset , being born in a Muslim family made us Muslims but I think until we question ourselves and accept the facts ourselves once more, we are likely to go astray because of lack of knowledge ❤. Maybe one could interpret this as stages of belief (eman)

​@@saeadborji1464what does "ism" mean? And what language is that from? I've never heard that word used for "sin"

@@Zamin30 it's not the right mindset cuz it starts from an assumption. to truly seek one has to let go off of such biases. in your mind you basically have no option but to believe. then it's more of a confirmation bias as opposed to seeking.

@@karimmezghiche9921 اثم

Bro i am not kidding but mathematical logic and group theory and set theory help me to understand this 😂😂

​@@addajs3200India was China's teacher in religion and imaginative literature, and the world's teacher in trigonometry, quadratic equations, grammar, phonetics, Arabian Nights, animal fables, chess and philosophy." - The Wisdom of China and India Lin Yutang, p. 3-4 ~ The Arabs derived technical guidance in every branch of study such as astronomy, mathematics and physics from India. A noted scholar of history, W.H. Siddiqui notes: “The Arab civilization grew up intensively as well as extensively on the riches of Indian trade and commerce. Nomadic Arab tribes became partially settled communities and some of them lived within walled towns practised agriculture and commerce, wroteon wood and stone, feared the gods and honored the kings.” ~ Arabic medicine was founded on the translations from the Sanskrit treatise, made by command of the Kaliphs of Baghdad, 750-960 AD. European medicine, down to the 17th Century, was based upon the Arabic; and the name of the Indian physician Charaka repeatedly occurs in the Latin translations.” ~ Sir William Hunter, British Historian.

@@addajs3200 Group and Set are synonymous, aren't they?

@@romuloroman no bro in math they are different but related in some aspects

Mohammad hijab 😂

Except that God created man in his image, so we can imagine

We will never perceive god, he is beyond comprehension and perception; he created comprehension and perception

@@tushtush96 God cannot be shaped like a human, or have an image of a human, or have any image at all. That would imply something is requiring him God to have an image (meaning a limitation of God) or that God was designed (and is therefore not God). The Bible was written by men that's why there's theological and logical inconsistencies.

@@tbooonetwo-fitty-five7523what doesn't have logical inconsistencies

@@tbooonetwo-fitty-five7523 The Qur'an describes Allah as having anthropomorphic parts. The whole "our God is more sophisticated than yours because we'll avoid describing Him in personal terms" shtick was done retroactively by later generations of Muslims. It contradicts what's in the original book, which makes this line of argumentation dishonest because they're presenting their religion as something it's not.

Can you summarize Nagarjuna's argument? Thanks

​@@fusion9619lets talk religion already has a vid on nagarjuna

Nagarjuna's argument is really retarded. The dude sounds like he was on acid when he wrote about it. He argues that an entity cant exist on its own because its a "fallacy of eternalism". Just because you call something a fallcy doesnt mean it is one... At the same time he believes something can just pop into existence... Cant expect someone who worships blue elephants and dudes with 8 arms to have great theological arguments.

Yep it was on my mind since the beginning of the video... Also Shankaracharya was popping up there.. I had no idea that this was going on in Islam...

Not a huge difference at all You implying the creator of all existence, cant dictate? Your whole statement is fallacious. Allah is not anthropomorphic. Prophetic system is for our sake. Not any different from God providing the means of oxygen for us to live. Everything is a divine intervention under his orchestration. Also the creator of all existence cant make realms now? Says who, you? Hahaha Also you are totally ignorant of the poetic language of the Quran to say the least.

@I think he’s talking about the difference between deism and theism. God COULD technically do all those things, the question is, how do you prove that he’s done them. The arguement presented doesn’t touch on that.

@ That’s not the argument The point isn’t that god can’t the argument is that just because a god (as in a strictly necessary) exists doesn’t mean that a specific religion is true

@@Alieth because it's a gateway argument. Once you get into theology you can tackle other arguments for those questions

You assume a specific theology that Ibn Sina doesn't necessarily agree with. In any case, this isn't what he is trying to prove with the argument. He is simply arguing that there is a Necessary Existent, and that that Necessary Existent per definition is God (and that God must be one, etc). Whatever else we say about God is secondary, or must be argued for in other ways. Very few Islamic theologians or philosophers would say that God is anthropomorphic, for example.

In what text did Nagarjuna make this observation? I'd be interested to read it!

Can you tell us more? I didn't agree with Ibn Sina either, but it's quite probable that I didn't fully understand from this video. I basically was thinking, "if God is indivisible, then how do we get a divisible universe?" And it seems contradictory to call God "God," as in omnipotent, and then say God can't do something.

4:15

​@@fusion9619 The divisible universe is not part of God. Its a creation of God. So you cant put God and his creation in the same bucket. Also there is a difference between "God can't do something" and "That makes no sense for God to do it" Like you can say God cant erase himself from existence. At first thought u think "wow, well god is not omnipotent because he cant do it" But then you reflect. How can a being that is not bound by time cease to exist? That must mean that there is a period when he existed and then he ceased. A timespan of his existence, therefore rendering him contingent and not God in the first place. See the vision?

@@extremelyrarebird Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

These are not arguments, but "claims". Or consider them as premisses to some arguments

@@rafiksaibi9213 I advise you to watch “The Journey of Certainty” episodes, they’re what every atheist looks for.

Claims are not arguments The big bang does not need a cause

Listen to dr. Eyad Qunaibi

Watch (The Journey of Certainty) episodes.

هذه ما تسمى الأحكام العقلية. ((اقسام حكم العقل لا محالة****هي الوجوب ثم الاستحالة*****ثم الجواز ثالث الاقسام***** فافهم منحت لذة الافهام. تحياتي.

Its not a "proof" of anything.

@@c.a.t.732 these are fundamental mental proofs. You just don t have logic

@@user-vj1ug2sc3v Actually, I do "have logic", which is why I don't buy into the old "first cause" argument, which has been debunked over and over and proves nothing.

@@c.a.t.732 please debunk it.

It's a conclusion after combining many other proofs. Since the Necessary entity is necessary in all possible realities, since ALL possible/contingent realities return back to it. AND Axiom (can be proven later) : GOD is unchanging in nature (due to being non-contingent/ being able to be no other way/ no variants) AND Axiom (this one too): GOD is Potent (since he creates and changes and sustains the contingent creation) He MUST be OMNI- Potent, all his attributes must be OMNI, as to ensure he in unchanging yet the maximally potent (capable of effecting/demonstrating potency) for ALL potential realities... understand it like this. In Universe A god lifts an anvil of 5lbs , in Universe B god lifts and anvil of 50lbs ... since God must be able to life the anvil in all potential realities, God's strength must be OMNI/Infinite. same way, since GOD must have the potency to realize all realities, he must be OMNI potent ------------------------ WILL: God Makes Choices, hence he has WILL Randomness is not a real thing: most "random" things like a coin flip or die roll are mere complex deterministic chains of events, which we with limited knowledge label "chance" but are infact unavoidable and pre-determined, so NOT RANDOM the Other is TRUE Randomness, such as the reasons behind Why the rules of the Universe, universal constants and the laws of logic and reason exist the way that they do. stuff like Quantum fluctuations and stuff. All these are choices, something is choosing one potential over another. when you observe a particle and it chooses one spin over another, stuff like that, something is choosing. you can say it is "Randomness" i.e. Randomness is choosing, i.e. this deity of Randomness has will = Thought = Intelligence = capacity to make non deterministic choices. ------------------------------ Knowledge: An entity with Choice/Will making choices and designing creation using its potency must have knowledge about what it does. Since all its attributes are Omni, it is Omniscient. it knows everything about everything that it has done and the cascading effects of all potentialities. *DONE*

There is no competition between the both. Both were smart swarthy guys, Aristotle -> leans towards the Causality argument Ibn SIna -> argues from contingency Both are radically different, yet similar, two different routes/proofs to the same conclusion i.e. GOD

​@@PuffleGlurpwas ibn sina the first one to use the contingency argument

@@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273 ok

Yes, it's just the "proof of the truthful" part of the longer Ibn Sina video

​@LetsTalkReligion India was China's teacher in religion and imaginative literature, and the world's teacher in trigonometry, quadratic equations, grammar, phonetics, Arabian Nights, animal fables, chess and philosophy." - The Wisdom of China and India Lin Yutang, p. 3-4 ~ The Arabs derived technical guidance in every branch of study such as astronomy, mathematics and physics from India. A noted scholar of history, W.H. Siddiqui notes: “The Arab civilization grew up intensively as well as extensively on the riches of Indian trade and commerce. Nomadic Arab tribes became partially settled communities and some of them lived within walled towns practised agriculture and commerce, wroteon wood and stone, feared the gods and honored the kings.” ~ Arabic medicine was founded on the translations from the Sanskrit treatise, made by command of the Kaliphs of Baghdad, 750-960 AD. European medicine, down to the 17th Century, was based upon the Arabic; and the name of the Indian physician Charaka repeatedly occurs in the Latin translations.” ~ Sir William Hunter, British Historian.

​@@LetsTalkReligionIndia was China's teacher in religion and imaginative literature, and the world's teacher in trigonometry, quadratic equations, grammar, phonetics, Arabian Nights, animal fables, chess and philosophy." - The Wisdom of China and India Lin Yutang, p. 3-4 ~ The Arabs derived technical guidance in every branch of study such as astronomy, mathematics and physics from India. A noted scholar of history, W.H. Siddiqui notes: “The Arab civilization grew up intensively as well as extensively on the riches of Indian trade and commerce. Nomadic Arab tribes became partially settled communities and some of them lived within walled towns practised agriculture and commerce, wroteon wood and stone, feared the gods and honored the kings.” ~ Arabic medicine was founded on the translations from the Sanskrit treatise, made by command of the Kaliphs of Baghdad, 750-960 AD. European medicine, down to the 17th Century, was based upon the Arabic; and the name of the Indian physician Charaka repeatedly occurs in the Latin translations.” ~ Sir William Hunter, British Historian.

​@@LetsTalkReligionThe people of pre-Islamic Arabia held Hinduism in great esteem as evidenced from the fact that they would endearingly call their most attractive and favourite daughters as Hinda and Saifi Hindi. The fact that Arabs regarded India as their spiritual and cultural motherland long before Islam is corroborated by the following poem which mentions each one of the four Vedas by name: (The English translation is in black) “Aya muwarekal araj yushaiya noha minar HIND-e Wa aradakallaha manyonaifail jikaratun” “Oh the divine land of HIND (India) (how) very blessed art thou! Because thou art the chosen of God blessed with knowledge” “Wahalatijali Yatun ainana sahabi akha-atun jikra Wahajayhi yonajjalur -rasu minal HINDATUN “ “That celestial knowledge which like four lighthouses shone in such brilliance - through the (utterances of) Indian sages in fourfold abundance.” “Yakuloonallaha ya ahal araf alameen kullahum Fattabe-u jikaratul VEDA bukkun malam yonajjaylatun” “God enjoins on all humans, follow with hands down The path the Vedas with his divine precept lay down.” “Wahowa alamus SAMA wal YAJUR minallahay Tanajeelan Fa-e-noma ya akhigo mutiabay-an Yobassheriyona jatun” “Bursting with (Divine) knowledge are SAM & YAJUR bestowed on creation, Hence brothers respect and follow the Vedas, guides to salvation” “Wa-isa nain huma RIG ATHAR nasayhin Ka-a-Khuwatun Wa asant Ala-udan wabowa masha -e-ratun” “Two others, the Rig and Athar teach us fraternity, Sheltering under their lustre dispels darkness till eternity” This poem was written by Labi-Bin-E- Akhtab-Bin-E-Turfa who lived in Arabia around 1850 B.C. That was 2300 years before Mohammed!!! This verse can be found in Sair- Ul-Okul which is an anthology of ancient Arabic poetry. It was compiled in 1742 AD under order of the Turkish Sultan Salim. ~ Vedic culture was very much alive just before the birth of Muhammad. Again let’s refer to the Sair-Ul-Okul. The following poem was written by Jirrham Bintoi who lived 165 years before the prophet Muhammed. It is in praise of India’s great King Vikramaditya who had lived 500 years before Bintoi. (The English translation is in red). “Itrasshaphai Santul Bikramatul phehalameen Karimun Bihillahaya Samiminela Motakabbenaran Bihillaha Yubee qaid min howa Yaphakharu phajgal asari nahans Osirim Bayjayholeen Yaha sabdunya Kanateph natephi bijihalin Atadari Bilala masaurateen phakef Tasabahu. Kaunni eja majakaralhada walhada Achimiman, burukan, Kad, Toluho watastaru Bihillaha yakajibainana baleykulle amarena Phaheya jaunabil amaray Bikramatoon” - (Sair-ul-Okul, Page 315) “Fortunate are those who were born during King Vikram’s reign, he was a noble generous, dutiful ruler devoted to the welfare of his subjects. But at that time, We Arabs oblivious of divinity were lost in sensual pleasures. Plotting & torture were rampant. The darkness of ignorance had enveloped our country. Like the lamb struggling for its life in the cruel jaws of a wolf, we Arabs were gripped by ignorance. The whole country was enveloped in a darkness as intense as on a New moon night. But the present dawn & pleasant sunshine of education is the result of the favor of that noble king Vikram whose benevolence did not lose sight of us foreigners as we were. He spread his sacred culture amongst us and sent scholars from his own land whose brilliance shone like that of the sun in our country. These scholars & preceptors through whose benevolence we were once again made aware of the presence of god, introduced to his secret knowledge & put on the road to truth, had come to our country to initiate us in that culture & impart education.” Thus we can see that Vedic religion and culture were present in Pre-Islamic Arabia as early as 1850 B.C., and definitely present at the time of Mohammed’s birth.

Thanks for the answer. It's an amazing thought.

You think you did something here😂😂😂 such a dumb argument. Whatever you will be able to observe is a set or subset of the dependable things. And anything that does not belong to this subset is not dependable. There are just too many things that conclude the existance of god. Either people are arrogant or too dumb to understand. You want God to show [whatever its pronoun is] itself to you. So then you will believe there is a god. Like why does he even need to do it. Please Educate your self and stop being either arrogant or dumb or whatever it is that you are.

At least spend some time searching for meaning and avoid drowning in your confirmation bias. Use reason and logic if that's what suits you. I guarantee you that you find something. If you decide to ignore this and dwell in you comfort zone, then be it; you're free for thinking that way and I'm sorry if I offended you in some way; We humans don't like people disturbing our doctrines.

​​@@bitwise4996 You're talking as though I'm religiously attached to a belief, that's a false presumption - the logical step here is to doubt, especially in the absence of any reason to presume an intelligent creator when you can't disprove any of the other alternatives or even show why an intelligent creator would be the most likely or obvious. You're begging as well, you can't actually guarantee I'll find something, just presume I haven't found it yet because I'm not searching in the way you like, which seems to rely on a bias of some kind and presumptions about others. You haven't actually engaged with my points, just expressed your disturbance by them and then projected that in a weirdly passive-aggressive way.

@@Hatasumi69 Are you claiming Logic and Rationality are fake illusions? accidents of evolution, that merely delude humans into thinking that we have intelligence, and pathways to uncover Truth? Because you can take that position if you want... but you'll slip into solipsism, and can't trust any knowledge of any kind, not even your own existence. Please expound upon your beliefs and positions regarding the Contingency argument. ----- The Way to the Islamic God/ Building the Defination of GOD bit by bit: 1) Prove the neccesary existence 2) Prove Will 3) Prove Omni Properties 4) Conclude the defination of God 5) Filter all World religions via the Defination (having proven Purpose as an extension of pt. 2) 6) Prove the Reliability/Historicity of Islamic Scripture DONE

This isn't really an argument. All you've said is because we don't know everything in the universe we don't know how it came about but you discount everything we do know. All the knowledge we do have, our scientific, logical reasoning and induction all point to the best possible explanation which is a necessary existence I.e God. So just like in science we stick to the best possible explanation until new information is acquired. If we say we need complete 100% perfect information to do or conclude anything, then we can't say anything for certain and there is no such thing as objective truth. We can't be sure of anything in history, science, police can never convict a criminal as long as there is even a little bit of doubt despite 99% evidence against the perpetrator. We can't even be sure we exist since we can't prove our existence. This line of thinking only creates chaos and harm to society. If you still persist and say there's a lot more we don't know then what we know, I agree with that (and that will always be the case since we'll never know everything about the universe) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't come up with the best possible explanation because of what I said above. Your other explanations like spontaneous generation etc you will have to prove how it's a better explanation than God

LOL SHAYKHSPEARE thats excellent

Are you a Pashtun?

@@CognizantShroud excuse me?

@@GentlemanQ It's just a question? or Did it perhaps affect your emotions?

@@CognizantShroud i didn't understand your question, that's why. What's a pashtun?

That leap isn’t necessary for everyone, for instance take a look at Taoism. There are arguments that point towards “God” being interested in creation. You can explore those if you want to.

The argument does not start out as a blank state, it starts out with the assumption that God exists. And so since God exists, he must exist in a way that makes sense... which is where this argument comes into play. But even then, this argument is still flawed since for everything needing a cause, repeating decimals in math (infinity) need to have a cause that is not infinity, because if infinity is the cause of infinity, that would be like saying that infinity is infinity because infinity is infinity, but this only keeps infinity the same, it doesn't give reason to cause infinity. In order to get around the infinite regress of causation, we must use something which isn't possible for us to understand has a cause to be the source of everything, but to do this we must use that which we don't understand, but also understand must be where everything comes from if such a thing exists. You might think that this is a logical contradiction, but if there must be something which has caused everything, that something would be greater than infinite in order to be the cause of infinity, and by that I mean something which is not infinite because it goes on longer than forever. We cannot comprehend something that goes on longer than forever because that is something which simply does not apply to us, us being beings that at most can only exist forever, not longer than forever. So, with something existing as greater than infinity being the cause, that something cannot be caused by something else, because following such reasoning would mean that something else which caused that which is greater than infinity would also have a cause, and a cause of that cause, etc. but that's infinity, and that which is greater than infinity cannot be infinity, therefore there being something greater than what is greater than infinity also can't be infinity, because that would mean what is less than greater than infinity is actually more than greater than infinity. But this is not us truly understanding that which is greater than infinity, it's merely us understanding the limitations of infinity and our own understanding of why everything exists. But what is the source of everything cannot simply be greater than infinity, but also greater than everything which we can understand, even causes, but then you might think that since you can only understand 1 Greater than everything, that must be God, since God is singular, but this is false, as it implies that we can understand that which is greater than everything, much like how we cannot see everything through a crack in the door, so too can we not understand everything of what is greater than everything through our limited understanding. If this explanation interests you, I would recommend checking out the philosophical atheist religion, Flawlessism since this is where this bit of philosophy is taken from.

@@Echogem222 It's possible to miss the fact that the idea of a "necessary being" does not require a first cause. When using science to explain how things work in the universe, a causal chain is necessary. However, the problem with this concept is that science can't explain the uncaused first cause, which is required by the theistic argument. If science argues that the universe is self-existent or uncaused, it's not a scientific argument, but one based on theism. Science must begin all arguments with a cause to remain credible.

You're doing the jump by asking several questions all at once, like why is the concept of a necessary being related to a concept called "God"? Is God a "personal God"? Does God have a Will? Does God command worship? The way I see it these can even be broken down more, for example: What is a God? What is a personal God? What is a Will? What is worship?

@@tcl5853 I'm not using science for my counter argument, I'm using philosophy, so I don't get what you're trying to say.

which doesnt say much.

I think I have better arguments. But since Abn Sina and I are both arguing that God exists, being critical of his argument feels kinda wrong... Like friendly fire. Same team.

​@@matswessling6600 True.

@@fusion9619 your team should be truth not what you already believe in, it might be totally wrong and thus you bias your thinking to accept wrong assumptions.

@@shayson1357 oh, I completely agree. I wasn't always a believer - it was an obsession with truth that got me here.

Nothing can shake this argument.

there isnt

No Such thing guys...Be Humble!

@@AessamL ibn sina had thought of all the cases. U cant break it, unless you undergo logical fallacies, which suit yourself, but you're wrong in the end lol

@@AessamL u cannot... The only thing to breake the argument is to pretend that there is and endless chain of possibilities that each one of them relies on its predecessor... And it s mentally impossible and fake thinking also... So no... There is no one can shake this argument even after million year

Obviously not a personal message. Probably you miss the memo. Maybe you think god like thor😂 puny god. Here is the God in Islam. "And when Moses arrived at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said, "My Lord, show me [Yourself] that I may look at You." [Allāh] said, "You will not see Me, but look at the mountain; if it should remain in place, then you will see Me." But when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He rendered it level, and Moses fell unconscious. And when he awoke, he said, "Exalted are You! I have repented to You, and I am the first [among my people] of the believers." Surah Al Araf 7:143. Another thing, in science, you should watch a video about being live in 1 to several dimension & more. Till a higher dimension, there is a being that are beyond our thoughts that have power to create the universe. We human live by rules because we are created to live by it. So which rules/law is the best for human? Even you (a human) live alone in the island, you need to set a rules.

Why would having characteristics make something be more than one? are you saying that because the hydrogen atom has charge, it's more than one hydrogen atom?

@@themuslimview The video claimed that part of Avicenna's argument was that something having parts makes two non-contingent beings impossible. But the argument also assumes god has characteristics. Characteristics of a being are parts of a being. So, according to the previous argument, one non-contingent being is also impossible. I don't know why something having parts makes two non-contingent beings impossible in the first place. I probably just don't understand what that piece of the argument actually means. I was pointing out a potential contradiction in the argument, not making a claim about characteristics making something more than one. Although I don't see how characteristics are different than parts in the context of the Avicenna's argument.

@@lonecandle5786i think because characteristics are a property of the whole. The parts are, very much that, parts of the whole, so they divide the whole. Characteristics belong to the whole, not to parts of it, so characteristics don’t divide the whole.

"Parts" in this context i believe refer to things that something else is contingent upon, making up that thing. Like your existance being contingent on your molecules, your molecules being contingent on various atoms being there, these atoms being contingent on sub atomic particles and so on. This understanding of a "part" is different than what we would call a characteristic, as in features you have that describe you. Like to give a really basic example being tall is a characteristic but it is not something someone's existance is contingent upon. So characteristics and parts aren't necessarily the same thing, thus something having characteristics doesn't necessarily mean that thing has parts. I believe Avicenna's definitions adress this by themselves, since according to him one of God's intellectually deductable characteristics is him being necessary and by his definition something that's necessary is not contingent upon anything, meaning that thing cannot have parts (per the definition of parts i gave in the beginning). Thus i don't think your premise of something having characteristics meaning that thing has parts is accurate, although am curious if you were presenting this argument from a polytheistic worldview trying to argue for multiple necessary beings or atheistic worldview trying to debunk the argument as a whole

@@zgramzhnisk3036 Although I don’t find the argument for God’s existence convincing in general, I wasn’t approaching this from any particular worldview or attempting to prove or debunk something greater. I just noticed a potential problem with characteristics and parts, and then voiced that potential problem. I see that parts and characteristics are not the same thing, but I don’t see how you can have characteristics without parts. What makes two wholes different? It seems that differences in their parts must make them different. To be tall rather than short is determined by your parts and how these parts interact with one another. Even if there was only one thing, it would still have height characteristics. If it’s possible to have characteristics, something of the makeup, or the parts, of that thing must determine those characteristics. I don’t see how you get characteristics, descriptions of the whole, without parts. I’m guessing that Sina gets around this by claiming God has no characteristics, and claiming those listed characteristics at 11:42 are not really characteristics. I don’t know how something “Simple, without parts” can then create all the complexity of the universe, but this video didn’t explain all of Sina’s argument. We have no clue where matter and energy came from, or if it always existed, and no logic chain proves a god did it. The smallest parts of matter and energy could have always existed and join and form universes and galaxies, or, something could have created all this energy and matter. This begs the questions: what created that something, how did it come to exist, how can it exist without parts or without being created by something? It’s also not clear why the non-caused creator is what we think of as God or some other force we know nothing about. It’s a mystery, and there isn’t the evidence or logic to prove it one way or another.

Do you exist?

@@Pekara121 he doesn't know

​@@Pekara121 glib and unhelpful

@@pakilla4578 maybe if he steps in front of a bus he will? 🤔

@@Pekara121the argument does not rely on his existence.

Because energy is dependent upon...

Because energy is a part and a part can't create and generate himself

Because that is not the entire argument for a particular religion? This is used only for existence of a god, not a specific one but a god. Then you use other arguments for your particular religion.

Well someone did not finish the video

@@GardeDuCoeur god is made of parts that can be otherwise

Would make sense if you study. Do you even know what each religion describes god as?

you need to first understand God, That something that exist without a cause need to be; Timeless Matterles Self sufficient Have no equals There can be no other thing that exist without a cause such claims as big bang is still composoed of matter and a time and such cause of existant can be composed of something other than itself because matter and time is still something that have a cause. SİMPLY there need to God. When you understand this, you need to study the aspecsts of religion. QQuran simply have an evidence for proving itself Keep in note that Last Prophet of Islam, Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) didnt know how to read and lived in a desert society. Also if this verses didnt feel enough for you I know many verses containning more scientific discovery in it This verse is about a war happenned between Romans and Persians. 602-628 war was a war between Romans and Persians. Persia being Rome's one of biggest enemies defeat Rome heavily at the start of the war. Rome lost half of his empire ( That being; Egypt, Syria, Levant, Big part of anatolia, Armenia, Caucasia, Jerusalem, Jordan, Lebanon and possibly more that doesnt come to my mind rn ) at the time of this verse came to earth Rome was heavily defeated but Allah send his messages through Prophet (Peace be upon him) like this; Surah ar Rum ( First 4 verses ) ( Rum means Roman btw ) 1- Alif-Lãm-Mĩm. 2- The Romans have been defeated 3- in a nearby land. Yet following their defeat, they will triumph 4- within three to nine years. The ˹whole˺ matter rests with Allah before and after ˹victory˺. And on that day the believers will rejoice Quranic law is perfect, Quran linguistically is perfect and Quran itself is perfect. Quran is the ultimate book that proves the existant of God and Islam

"therefore the Abrahamic God is real" you mean,all Abrahamic religion worships the God of Abraham

So many leaps not just one. Very strange "logic"

there is no "islamic" God. Islam is just surrendering to that one God knowing he is God and you are his creation

It's the old question of what caused the "first cause".

@@c.a.t.732 which is a bad question. If that question is valid the first cause in question isnt the first cause to begin with. So you will have to keep asking until you reach the true first cause which is a wall when you cant question any further. Its a dead end. You cant counter the argument. The only way is to take the ignorant atheist route and say "oh but we dont REALLY know God exists" which is lazy and retarded.

It can be countered. If a necessary existent must have created the universe, then it is possible that the singularity before the big bang is the necessary existent. Nothing about the argument proves any religion. It could be Krishna or a being who has never revealed itself.

@@teehee4096to be fair the argument does not claim proof for a certain religion. It is proof for the existence of God. There are other proofs that validate which religion is on the right track.

@@teehee4096 i'd say that a singularity is a state that doesn't just do things for no reason - without a cause. so what caused that singularity to expand into a universe

Who are "they", and what is the "God" that "they" claim to exist (as opposed to what Ibn Sina argues here)? Theology within different religions are diverse and never have a single theology about what God is supposed to be. Many people assume a specific theology based on what we've learned from pop culture. But the history and arguments of theology and philosophy (regarding God) in history is a lot more complex and nuanced than that.

@@LetsTalkReligion​​⁠I think in this case he means Muslims(but Christians certainly do the same) and I think the conception of God that Ibna discusses is not incompatible with Islam, but you certainly can’t get from this argument straight to Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah and the Quran is Allah’s final revelation. This argument is really compatible with Islam, Sikhism, Bahai, Judaism, one could argue platonism, you could also argue Hinduism, the deism of the founding fathers, and Unitarian Christianity fits this very well - in fact deism adheres to this god the closest because it brings on very few other concepts that need proving. I think his point was just that this argument doesn’t necessarily lead to a god, and doesn’t quite get you to Islam even though Islam’s God fits the bill.

This argument solely serves the purpose to prove the existence of God not to prove that Islam is the right religion so I don't understand why you complain about him not proving that the Islamic God Allah exists

Once you reach at the stage that God exist then you'll eventually try to find out what the religions say about that entity or if they are true. Ibn sina didnt argue about the existence of islamic God rather an entity exists.

​@@Al-Noor-rf4ie So this is your logic *"Any feature that exists in us must also exist in the necessary existence otherwise it will be impossible for us to have these features"* Your reasoning is invalid. Using your logic I should also conclude that necessary existence must also be physical and material. Because I have these features and these would be impossible if necessary existence didn't have them. Now you will say it is logically impossible for the necessary existence to be physical and I agree. The point that I am trying to make is that the basic principle underlying your argument is flawed and inconsistent with your own beliefs and results in logical impossibilities. You have to bring a better argument to prove that NE is intelligent and conscious.