Naturalism and the delusion of Atheists

Here is the sample chapter from my book on Evolution and Design:

Here is a sample chapter from my book on Existence of God and Burden of Proof:

Here is a sample chapter from my book on Prophecies of Prophet Muhammad SAW:

Here is a sample chapter from my book on Hadith Reliability:

[HarisKhan-wydw]

Your videos are big slap on the faces of Atheist (Atheism) without any doubt ❤
Keep it up my brother

[Tom_Tom_Club]

1:30 God of the Gaps argument: no scientist claims that science explains everything. The Bible explains very little about many things, but that fact doesnt invalidate the text per se.

[Kjmags]

As-salamu alaykum,
I am an atheist, but I found this video very interesting and containing some compelling arguments. Of course, I have some disagreements. If you would care to read and explore, I have listed them below. I will say that I am a former Christian and not very familiar with the Quaran or Islamic ideologies, so if I make a point that misrepresents your beliefs, please let me know.

1. You offer the idea that science cannot explain all physical phenomena. This is of course absolutely TRUE, and in fact the very basis of science! Our models are forever improving and the collective mass of knowledge forever expanding as we continue to research the world and answer more and more questions we thought could never be reasonably explained and must be the work of God. You offer the mind and near-death experiences as perfect examples of a gap in our knowledge. To this effect, I have nothing to say as human brain chemistry is probably of the most complicated fields, and the problem of consciousness is difficult to work around.
The origin of life is a different case, however. We have proved in a lab setting that all the fundamental components necessary to form life could have and likely did exist in close proximity to each other under early earth conditions. Additionally, in January of this year researchers discovered amino acids on the surface of an asteroid, proving that these building blocks can naturally occur. The step from chemicals to single celled life is one that has not yet been replicated in a lab setting, unfortunately, but the evidence is mounting. I'm not sure what your take on evolution is, but this is a phenomenon that has been extensively modeled and has overwhelming support for the vast majority of scientists and actually observed in some cases on a shorter time frame.
Additionally, even if these processes could not be explained by science, they are small enough in comparison to the vast majority of evidence that exists to support the idea of naturalism that we would not immediately throw it out in favor of intelligent design. If you wish to disprove naturalism you would need to generate enough evidence that it would "tip the scales" so to speak, or strike a critical point so that the entire system could not operate without it.

2. You offer the idea that science can only explain phenomena and not why it occurs, or whether or not it happens without the guidance of a creator. Maybe we have some kind of differing philosophy here, but I hardly see why this matters. God could absolutely exist and be silently guiding the behavior of the universe, science doesn't care who's pulling the strings as long as they can accurately model how they're pulled. We assume they are unguided because we do not see a hand guiding them. You think it's wrong we would assume this, I think it's ridiculous we should immediately assume something completely imperceptible (which you claim it is) is at play.
The MOST IMPORTANT point is this: You keep saying we believe science disproves God, it doesn't and never can. The contradiction we see between intelligent design and physical processes is in the specific creation stories that are told, not in the inherent idea of intelligent design. If God designed the universe as it is today, absolutely nothing would change for the atheists.

3. I agree with your take on the first atheist response; we should not assume the ways of God and cannot reasonably argue this.

4. Thank you for clarifying your distinction between design and supernatural, but they are still almost the same thing. What I mean is, creator would in this case design the world through supernatural means. You argue that Ockham's razor sides with intelligent design as it only introduces 1 new entity, and naturalism introduces millions. This is true but irrelevant. Intelligent design offers an entity that operates in complete mystery and by processes that have never been reasonably observed or explained. Naturalism offers millions that all share the same explainable system and support each other, although you are welcome to disagree about the fossil record. In this way, intelligent design will always be a more complicated belief. This being said, Ockham's razor is not the end all be all of logical processes.

Thank you for the discourse, I hope you can take something away from my responses.

[sandrajackson]

I am just going to keep it simple, if you tell us a god exists and you cannot present us with one, What makes it so far from reason to not believe one? No need to go down all his naturalism, supernaturalism, empiricism and all that bs just to get away from the fact that if you cannot present us with what it is you claim it's not our problem, no matter what the reason is that you cannot, and the deficiency is not on our end, and if you are the one proposing something that is not consistent with external reality then you would be much closer to the definition of delusional. Where exactly are you seeing a god that you think we should be seeing one as well that you think is so obvious to the point of delusion if we miss it?

[frosted]

You are spewing strawman arguments. Why do you need logical fallacies?

[stevencurtis]

Who is taking subjective intuitions as evidence?

[infinitydragoncultivator]

Love the animation and the new video style. Not that the previous one was bad but this is vastly superior.

[JoseMariayJose]

Wow brilliant, and very good quality Mashallah.

[Tom_Tom_Club]

So science assumes God doesnt exist, and you assume that God does exist. But you call them clowns so i guess your assumptions are okay?

[DreadEnder]

Hi I’m the guy who debunked your last video here to review this one.

0:45 your first claim in the video. “Atheist and evolutionists say naturalism is correct.”
Now I’m going to skip the whole “evolutionist” thing because I talked about it last time.
Naturalism is not a standpoint of atheist or people who think evolution is true. There are o people who identify with both of those things but aren’t naturalists and there are naturalists who don’t identify with one or both of those things.

1:16 this is the exact same straw-man again.

1:40 near death experiences.
You talked about this in your last video

1:42 no one has ever been conscious while brain dead by definition. It is the death of the tissues in the brain stem and consciousness cannot be reinstated. As such it’s impossible to know whether someone has a supernatural near death experience or not because they won’t be able to tell us. But we can be confident they won’t have any natural near death experiences as that would necessitate brain activity.

1:52 “the origin of life cannot be explained by physical processes.”
It very much can. While we may not conclusively know the entire process we have observed many of the necessary processes in it and have valid and sound concepts for the rest of the steps. And of course just because we don’t know all of it before doesn’t mean we can say we don’t know anything and therefore god. That’s the god of the gaps fallacy.

2:00 “all science can show a physical processes for things in the universe. This does not prove naturalism it assumes it.”
It doesn’t assume naturalism. It IS naturalism. The definition of naturalism as you described earlier in your video is a worldview where only physical laws apply without supernatural intervention.

2:14 “just because the processes can explain everything doesn’t mean they’re unguided.”
Sure. But we have no reason to believe they are guided and as it’s an unfalsifiable claim there’s no point in asserting it until we obtain actual evidence.

2:40 we’re not saying there’s a contradiction we’re just ignoring a baseless claim.

As for the first example of a “typical atheist argument.” I haven’t heard of that one before and while I do think it makes a great point I also think your counterpoint is valid.

6:20 “there are no/little transitional fossils.”
Literally every fossil is a transitional fossils but if your looking for clear transitional fossils;
Archaeopteryx, transitional dinosaur-bird
Australopithecus, transitional ape-human
Ambulocetus, transitional artiodactyl-cetacean
Tiktaalik, transitional fish-tetrapod
Ichthyostega, transitional amphibian-reptile
Etc.
Also that doesn’t in anyway address the claim that inserting god doesn’t have the burden of proof. Evolution is in no way related to claim. Thats a false equivalence fallacy.

7:14 you literally wrote on my comment that you were making this video to address it so you know thats a lie.

7:28 agreed. Intelligent design is supernatural but supernatural phenomena are not intelligent design. They are different. Of course you’re arguing that humans can also intelligently design things so it’s not supernatural but this is not what the actual argument was about. You’ve managed to strawman yourself.

8:18 “you can’t say physical processes refute design.”
Completely agree. But again that’s not our claim. That’s just another strawman.

Overall just as poor as your previous video. Except with even less evidence and even more fallacies.

[newintellectual.]

Talk to Ex-Muslim Sahil Official. You can present your arguments to a half million followers Muslims and Ex-Muslims and Nonbelievers.

[jmlx.m]

i really dislike asharis and i always send LA on them but for u i wont send LA for 3 hours