Atheist Comes to Muslim With Assumptions
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 03. 2024
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @hamzasden
© 2022 Hamza's Den All Rights Reserved
Please support us by donating. Jazak'Allahu Khairan to you all
Help Build Eman Foundation Masjid: gofund.me/d45959d7
Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/hamza...
Patreon: / hamzasden
Social media
Facebook: / hamzas-den-10066183176...
Twitter: / hamza_den
Instagram: / hamzasden4
TikTok: / hamzasden
Videos Edited & Channel Managed by: Ben Iqra
I'm sure the recorded video he took will not be used lol
Was about to say exactly the same 😂🤣
Lmao
Comment of the day 😂😂
He had a YT channel, but I don't think it caught on lol
His name is rob, if you type rob from speakers corner, you will see many many videos where he makes Muslims look stupid, he also does reviews which show how Muslims im speaker corner lie about science but alas most Muslims are uneducated and so won't even bother to look or fact check
Did someone lose their marbles and now carries them around in his pocket?
Good one 😂
I'm dead hahahahahahahahaha.
Beliefs are formed based on knowledge and application of reason.I don't know what the hell is this guy on about ?Could you believe something if you don't have a knowledge or reason.
This is hilarious on so many levels. 😂😂😂😂
Spends 15 min building an analogy and agreeing with hamza's conclusion, and make it seem like that's what he was saying all along and then doesn't apply the same conclusion when the tables turn.
Say thanks to the generic "British Way" of thinking. They think they are enlightened
Materialism, imperialism created the idea that humanity is an entity that can be controlled by material power, whereas human beings exist with spiritual emotions, belief in God, family ties, cooperation, love, patience, gratitude, etc., with emotions, they are exalted, atheism, denial of God, fashion, etc. It was supported by movies and books, but there is a God, most people believe in the existence of God. we believe, we pray, we prostrate, we worship and we find peace. It is not easy to earn eternal life. Heaven is the place where people who believe will receive endless blessings. The last religion is Islam. People are turning to Islam.
This man is a danger to himself, he is struggling with basic reason and logic
Right. If you don't know, you don't have the right to claim I'm wrong
barakaAllahu fikum
That's not really how it works. When it comes to debates and just any kind of logic in general, if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. Otherwise, it can be dismissed because there's no good evidence to support your claim. For example, if I say that flying pigs exist, I should be able to prove it. If I fail to do that, there's no reasonable evidence to support my claim. I could just be completely making it up, or basing my belief on the wrong assumptions, so it can be dismissed.
if u claim , there is a god and u have no proof? than ur a diot
Brother, don't attempt to discuss philosophy with theists. It's completely useless. They're incapable of seeing your point of view because in order to do so, they would have to confront their own shadow. They're afraid. And rightfully so. It's a painful experience. Ignorance is bliss.@@CJ-ff1xq
@@CJ-ff1xq yea I agree and the burden of proof is on the one who made the claim, but it does not give anyone the right to say they are wrong in the possibility of pigs flying for example, unless they bring evidence for that counter claim. (you can accept or reject it, but cannot say they are wrong)
@@CJ-ff1xqDid you watch the video? Watch it again and find out what the evidence means what role reasoning play in establishing what's true and untrue. You can't argue with someone if they've no standard or does not accept your standard to judge.
"Agnostic atheist" is an oxymoron. It literally means "Not knowing if God exists or not while at the same time believing that He doesn't exist". It doesn't make any sense.
I disagree, and here is why:
A dichotomy is the presentation of a complete set divided into two and only two subsets that are BOTH _jointly exhaustive_ (each and every member of the entire set must reside in one of the two subsets) and mutually exclusive (every member of the entire set must reside in only one subset).
There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism addresses. And that is the claim asserted by _certain_ theists that some particular god exists in reality.
Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim (true, false); *_acknowledgement_* as to the truth of the claim (acknowledge, fail to acknowledge); and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to ascertain the truth of such claim (sufficient, insufficient).
It is the the position we take on these dichotomies that establishes our identity in regard to atheism and agnosticism.
The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no other possible option as is dictated by the laws of logic (Identity, Non Contradiction, and Excluded Middle).
The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as to be true (theism), or fails to acknowledge the claim to be true (atheism). Again, there is no other available option.
The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to ascertain the truth of such claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism).
The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "a particular god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the theistic claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time.
The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning any given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time.
This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "a particular god(s) exists."
The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the truth of the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from (or personal relationship with) the deity mentioned in the claim.
The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence.
The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'.
And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._
Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The former is justified in changing their position to theism by 'revelation'. The latter is justified in suspending such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist.
This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an _agnostic_ atheist.
@@Theo_SkeptomaiThis is not really a point to arg-ue about in my opinion but no it's false:
Merriam Webster dictionnary:
•atheist
noun
Synonyms of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism
•agnostic
1 of 2
noun
Synonyms of agnostic
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
•oxymoron
noun
: a combination of contr-adictory or incongruous words (such as cr-uel kindness)
Ergo yes, atheist agnostic is an oxymoron as you can't not be sure and be sure God doesn't exist.
@@Theo_SkeptomaiMy intention is not to be mean but stop with the mental gymnastics just say I'm agnostic I don't know, if I get proof I'll take a position or say I'm atheist I'm open minded and logical and will accept proof if you give me or say no matter what you present I'll always refuse to acknowledge the existence of a God.
@@Theo_Skeptomai
Subject: The existence of God.
Position 1- "I know that God exists" = Theist.
Position 2- I know that God doesn't exist" = Atheist.
Position 3- "I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist" = Agnostic.
They are all mutually exclusive positions. You can't claim that you know that something doesn't exist and claim that you don't know if it exists or not at the same time. Just as you can't claim that that you know that something exists and claim that you don't know if it exists or not at the same time. You either know that it's true or you know that it's false or you don't know.
@@Theo_SkeptomaiYou can have your opinions, thoughts, reflections and hypothesis why you think you're atheist agnostic but that will not make it a fact and change word definitions.
The guy had a thought in shower and he debated himself and concluded that it would make a good point out in the world 👀
Like someone said; Imagine the only thing you are certain about is not being certain and claiming that's what makes you right. What a miserable existence. No criteria to judge yet passing verdict what's true & untrue. How embarrassing.
first half of this video is literally Hamza banging his head against a wall.
Atheist claimed they're advanced in thinking. This video is evidence that they're not
I feel sorry for him !
Alhamdulillah from Brunei Darussalam 😍😍😍😍
جزاكم الله خيرا
The greatest miracle that an atheist puts forward is that life comes from non-life. Reason comes from non-reason. That harmony comes from chaos.
right this debate was stupid the atheist knew he was talking bs at the beginning when hamza answered his questions and he just kept talking in circles
None of those are miraculous.
@@Theo_SkeptomaiProve that consciousness can come from non-consciousness. Show us that you’re not a liar.
@@Holistic_Islam he hasn't, nor does athiesm assert that it can. It just isn't rational to say "we don't know how this phenomenon occurs so it must be magic"
That is an appeal to personal incredulity fallacy.
Bless you brother
From knowledge comes reason and from reason comes belief. Otherwise its blind belief
I agree. Islam is a blind believe not based in reason or knowledge.
@@Theo_Skeptomaithat's a bald claim, can you prove it tho ??
@scpfondation4429 Certainly. The claim made can not be falsified. If a claim can not be falsified, it can not be demonstrated to be true.
Brother Hamza herd acts and looks like a lion look at that Lion mane hair Masha Allah
Miau miau 🐈⬛
Example of losing your marbles while holding them in your hands
ماشاءاللہ ماشاءاللہ ماشاءاللہ
If he has evidence......it's not an assumption.
Hamza you played his example so well.
Using his marbles example to get him to admit he can make a judgement and he can't say you're wrong
My fellow Muslim brother Hamza is not only firm but patient and tolerant as well with these unbelievers. May Allah subuhanata'la bless him with all goodness. Regards from india.
"Thirdly: Also, non-acceptance is one thing and denial is something quite different. Non-acceptance is indifference, a closing of the eyes to something, an ignorant absence of judgement. Many completely impossible things may be concealed within it, and the mind does not concern itself with them. As for denial, it is not non-acceptance, but an acceptance of non-existence; it is a judgement. The mind is compelled to work.
Words[2021] - 207
The most serious of this sort of scruple is this: the person suffering from it confuses something that is actually possible with something which is reasonably possible. That is, if he sees something which is of itself possible, he imagines it to be reasonably possible and reasonably doubtful. Whereas one of the principles of theology (kalâm) is that something which is of itself possible is not opposed to certain knowledge and does not contradict the demands of reason. For example, the Black Sea sinking into the earth at this moment is of itself possible, but we judge with certainty that the sea is in its place, and we know this without doubting it, and the possibility which is actually possible causes us no doubt and does not damage our certainty. And, for example, of itself it is possible that the sun will not set today or that it will not rise tomorrow. But this possibility in no way damages our certainty that it will rise and gives rise to no doubt. Similarly, unfounded suspicions arising from possibilities of this sort about, for example, the setting of the life of this world and rising of the life of the hereafter, which are among the truths of belief, cause no harm to the certainty of belief. Furthermore, the well-known rule, 'A possibility that does not arise from any proof or evidence is of no importance' is one of the established principles of both the sciences of the principles of religion and the principles of jurisprudence (fiqh).
Words[2021] - 292
If knowledge lacks the insight of the heart, it is ignorance. Taking the part of something is one thing, belief is something else.
Letters[2021] - 532
Not to deny is one thing; to believe is something completely different.
Emirdag-1 - 198
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi
Copy and paste? 😂
Agnostic Atheist? One doesn't know, the other doesn't believe. Together, they're apples and oranges.
You are ignorant and everyone that liked your comment.
I think he means he accepts he doesn’t know but he leans towards atheism
Believe is equal to probability. How they get the probability? By reasoning. How to reason? First you need the knowledge whether it's true or false. What does knowledge mean? It mean the information that you perceive. It came in many form such as experience, reading, watching, sensing, touching, dreaming, and many more.
Omg i couldn't watch the whole video 😮😅😊.... but all my respect to hamza .... you out here doing it man.... big up to Islam. 💯
Nice job well done
ماشاء الله
Guy put his marbles in a tub and used it as a very poor analogy
Then he put the marbles back in his pocket and never dare to bring it out 😂
Al Hamdulillah
How can you believe something without knowing it????
Wallah very objectively, Hamza is very logical and makes sense that the other guy
Mashallah
Its so interesting argument to watch
Interesting, but Hamza is mistaken here.
Belief can't down grade to knowledge. Belief is a prerequisite to have knowledge.
ie: before I "know P is true" I have to first "believe P is true." Belief then upgrades to knowledge under certain conditions.
I think Hamza and the other guy are equivocating on two views on knowledge.
Hamza is using a non-philosophical (dictionary) usage and the other guy is using a philosophical (epistemology) understanding.
This is clear because he mentions JTB (justified True Belief). This is an account of knowledge.
Meaning that I can only say "I know P" if three conditions are met:
1. have a justification that satisfies belief
2. Actively believe P.
3. P must be true (there must be some truth-maker)
ie: if the truth condition fails, then I can't "know P" even if I have a justification to believe P.
Hamza appears to think the "knowledge" part is tied up in the justification/reason condition.
I think that's what the other guy is trying to explain to Hamza - justification/reason why you believe is just one condition to have knowledge - it's not knowledge itself.
But it appears Hamza hasn't studied epistemology or accounts of knowledge if he hasn't heard of JTB (justified true belief) before.
And what if you accidentaly find something that you didn't believe in cause you didn't know it existed? Exactly.
@@curlyg3189 Sorry - I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase it with an example?
You are the one that is wrong. Knowledge is information. Belief is accepting something to be true. So knowledge come first before belief. You cannot belief in something without having the knowledge of it. Just like you cannot have an opinion of something before having knowledge on something.
The worst part is you think knowledge is truth when it is just information and information can be false.
@@jess13133 Thank you for your reply, but I think you misunderstood my comment.
We're talking about "knowledge" as a verb state - not a noun. ie: "to know P is true/false." eg: "I know 1+1=2 is true. I know 1+1=10 is false." etc
Basically the project is to understand what are the qualitative differences between (a) to believe "I believe God exists" and (b) to know "I know God exists."
We generally say that to "believe P is true" doesn't require specific conditions. eg: someone can believe something without reason.
However - "to know P" is different.
Under what conditions (what conditions need to be met) for someone to say "I know P is true"?
JTB (justified true belief) is an account of these conditions.
I haven't said "knowledge is truth."
if you read my original comment I said that *truth is but *one of the conditions "to know P."
ie: for me to say "I know 1+1=2" then the proposition (1+1=2) *has to be true. If a proposition is false, then we fail to meet a condition to say "I know P."
You are conflating information (data) with a verb state (to know).
Information in this sense is the justification condition - what are the reasons why you believe P - or what are the reasons for how you "know P"?
If "knowledge = information" then all your saying is a tautology: "I know because I have knowledge (information)."
But as we established - having information as a justification is just one condition. To satisfy the others you also need to believe P and P must be true.
So in summery: we're talking about knowledge as a verb: to know (not a noun).
And that there are qualitative differences between uttering:
"I believe P is true" (I could be wrong because there's no truth condition) vs "I know P is true" (I can't be wrong because truth is a condition).
Hope that helps clarify things for you. Feel free to ask if you're still confused on this. Thanks.
@@christaylor6574 Now you are lying and changing the meaning of words to suit your misconception. Knowledge by definition is just information retained. And information by definition can be true or false. So information have to come first before you turn it into belief that it is true or false.
Even science change in regard to gravity and orbit with neuton not giving the complete formula and einstein updating it. Knowledge come first then belief. Those that claim otherwise arent wise.
Hamza is not only patient he is so educated and can debate in a form that he flatten his opposite in seconds 😂
This guy knows that his argument is false but yet he is playing games with Hamza and he's trying to get himself out of the corner it's simple
Belief is doubt my brothers. You both are defending a doubt.
0:01 he should say I'm a dumb agnostic atheist, he doesn't understand his own example of the marbles
im Muslim because i use my godgiven intellect and faculties. I go with reason and understanding, not on blind faith. Just like we were instructed to by Allah in the Holy Quran. We are encouraged to seek knowledge and use our brain and instinct to determine the Truth. If you need to apply all sort of mental gymnastics and twisting of meaning of words to understand something than that itself might be a red flag. But if you read something your heart and mind naturally agrees with, this could be an indication that what it is you're reading might actually hold truth to it. May Allah guide us all, my brothers and sisters in humanity ♡
Do you agree truth comports with reality?
Very cool
This video is the definition of confusion from the guy with marbles
Dude towards the end was something,,,,,, That was something in human form.
It's Hunter Van Pelt from jumanji only this time he's dressed as a civilian nice
the great thing is that even ardent Atheists can see through islam and hold it in contempt. Christopher Hitchens, Richard dawkins and others
He really thought he did something by bringing his little prop 😂
Still couldn't even prove his point
Rob rob rob.. sorry.. sorry yee😊. You over confident what you believed.🙏🙏😅❤. May Allah guide you rob.🤲
After Brother Subboor demolished Rob's incoherent arguments a few years ago, Rob returns for yet another drubbing from brother Hamza! Unfortunate how Rob tries to argue illogical points to look intelligent
How is it so hard to understand that not knowing is equal to not having an answer? Not having an answer is equal to not being biased. Basic understanding
😂😂😂 Ashiest fall down into his own trap!
Hamza's belief : "Belief is the result of reason and knowledge".
What is the reason and knowledge of this belief?
Yes, this is exactly the point that matters in the end.
If you read the Quran you’ll understand, its a miracle by it self
@@ahlammbaideen8106 ahlammbaideen106's belife: "If you read the Quran you’ll understand, its a miracle by it self"
What is the reason and knowledge of this belief?
The top religious youtube channels are muslims this says a lot, Alhamdullilah
You could count the marbles
Hamza is very patient , i don't think i can deal with that . The guy is thick headed and he's english . Imagine being a teacher and deaing with that, he is going do drain all of your energy
He's not English, he's South African by the sounds of it.
Sounds a bit racist that ,old chap
Hamza is the example of 'you'll never win an argument with an idiot, they'll just bring you down to their level'. Except, Hamza I'd the idiot.
You only KNOW what you CHOOSE to believe.
People gotta understand the meaning of words
Without the knowledge about numbers and even you can't predict and have no clue at all. So the knowledge first and later belief
No wander this man is so slow, he is carrying his marbles in a box
A little bird flew on my shoulder and told me there are a odd number of marbles.
❤❤❤🎉
Hamza is correct.
Wrong
Knowledge exists potentially in the human soul like the seed in the soil; by learning the potential becomes actual beliefs. Ignorance itself is a form of knowledge within its beliefs. Is arrogance a belief or knowledge 🤔 👀 ?
How do you define a soul?
❤️Narrated Abu Huraira:
I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, Verily Allah created Mercy. The day He created it, He made it into one hundred parts. He withheld with Him ninety-nine parts, and sent its one part to all His creatures. Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire."
Assalamu Alaikkum WA rahmatulahi WA Barakathu
Wa alaikum salam wa rahmatoulahi wa barakatouh
@@nathannelissen8751 thank you Nate may Allah bless you and give you good health and forgive you of your sins and grant you ease in this life and the next. Ameen.
Lion unleashed on the nonbelievers....
How will it benefit you rather it's odd or even?
What are you trying to prove?
Knowledge means information, wether that knowledge is correct or incorrect is irrelevant as nowledge can be factual, false, logical or illogical
In epistemology (study of knowledge and beliefs) knowledge can't be false - that would be a contradiction.
@@roger5442 that’s false, epistemology is “the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity and scope and the distinction between JUSTIFIED belief and opinion.”
Knowledge, wether it’s within epistemology or not, has nothing to do with with it being false or factual. That definition within itself shows that, as even opinion is knowledge. And we all know that opinion can be factual or false.
@@roger5442Knowledges is somethings which you learn or see. Can be false or truth. What is not knowledges is something you do not know i.e don't know or no knowledges... it got nothing to do with false or true, not only false.
Lmaoo follower of lusty profet discussing about knowledge
@@YourHighnessMomoif your gonna critique, at least learn to spell properly 😂
This Atheist is a South African 😂
Bro exactly my thoughts. I can hear by the accent
Best part 21:58 why you’re here?
How can one decide what’s right or wrong when they have no knowledge of it? If I’m working on calculus equations but you never took calculus then you can tell me I’m doing it wrong 😅
Who exactly has no knowledge of right and wrong?
No wonder he is an atheist with his logical capability
Why accepting that a dream can make Andy knows the number. Is he known for having dreams that come to reality ? No, so why accepting that premis ?
The best question I ever heard ask to an atheist was asked by a rabbi. He said: what God don't you believe in?
I don't believe ANY god to be a reality.
@@Theo_Skeptomaithe point is… we want you to define it. Based on your errorless response, we have to assume that it isn’t the God we are referring to.
@@samueldavids3704 Define which god you're referring to?
@@Theo_Skeptomai We are referring to the creator of all things (including space, time and reality). If you do not feel comfortable with the term God (a term I have never been comfortable in), then lets just call it the something which is required to stop the loop of something from something where it could never be a nothing.
Im pretty sure the "gods" you are referring to have nothing to do with what I have described, because now Im leaning into the science route. A scientific route which will eventually reach it's limit to start investigating the "something" because science is also a part of "all creation/existence".
So... now that I've answered your question..going back to my initial question...which gods are the ones you dont believe in? Because they are very likely the same gods we also do not believe in. Hence why it is important to come to an agreement about what it is we are actually talking about.
In short...we aren't talking about a man in the sky. Getting you to the real discussion is the task. I've done most of the leg work for you in my response. Usually I would allow you to reach this point on your own, but you insisted on skipping the queue.
@@Theo_Skeptomaiwhy are you still here then?
We know the Islamic Hamza but who are you when you're at home? Do a video telling us all about your life before you became Muslim; about you parents and you school days etc. Did you have a beloved pet for example? We're you teased as a child?
We want to know how the sausage was made.
I concur that the atheist is unlikely to upload this video. The argument presented appears quite juvenile, asserting that belief precedes knowledge. It is evident that common sense dictates belief ought to be grounded in knowledge rather than the other way around.
Moreover, applying logical reasoning reinforces this perspective. It is logical to assert that one must possess knowledge or understanding of something before forming a belief about it. To suggest otherwise would be to undermine the very foundations of critical thinking and rational discourse. Thus, the assertion that belief precedes knowledge lacks logical coherence and fails to withstand scrutiny.
Indeed, I align with numerous Muslim theologians regarding their insights into philosophy, ontology, and epidemiology. The depth of their scholarship and profound understanding in these areas often garners admiration and respect. Their perspectives offer valuable contributions to the broader discourse on these subjects, enriching our understanding and fostering meaningful dialogue. It is through recognising the merit of diverse viewpoints, such as those put forth by Muslim theologians, that we can truly expand our intellectual horizons and engage in fruitful exploration of these complex topics.
Depending on the context of the discussion, then yes, belief does precede knowledge. Although that's a rather ambiguous statment in itself, in my opinion.
You can have belief without knowledge, but you can't have knowledge without belief (as by default if you know something to be true, you have to believe it's true).
Belief can be;
i) where something is proven one way or the other (beyond reasonable doubt) or,
ii) not proven, either sufficiently or
iii) not proven at all.
Whilst knowledge can be;
i) when something is proven one way or the other (beyond reasonable doubt).
Making it more exact, explicit and precise standpoint.
In other words, if I was being asked a question for £10 million about a subject I had no idea about and I had 3 people standing in front of me who were honour bound to tell the truth and Person A said he hoped he knew the answer, Person B said he believed he knew the answer and Person C said he knew he knew the answer, I'm picking Person C as the 'phone a friend', then Person B, then Person A. In that order.
'Knowledge' trumps 'belief'.
Belief and knowledge are related but distinct concepts:
1. **Belief:** Belief refers to accepting something as true or real, often based on faith, trust, or personal conviction. Beliefs can be influenced by emotions, experiences, culture, and upbringing. They may or may not be supported by evidence or rational justification.
2. **Knowledge:** Knowledge, on the other hand, is justified true belief. It involves understanding and awareness gained through experience, study, or investigation. Knowledge is supported by evidence, logic, and facts. It is considered more reliable and objective than mere belief because it is based on verifiable information.
In summary, belief is subjective and can vary among individuals or communities, while knowledge is objective and relies on evidence and rationality to ascertain truth.
Copy and pasted from somewhere
its the same thing. knowledge is not the truth. Knowledge is just information and it can be false. So by that definition you are bringing belief that you are right.
He'll enter fire if he continues with that believe..!
🤣🤣🔥
What a half cooked argument from this atheist
if it takes you this long to understand that knowledge has to come first in order to form a belief whether the knowledge is true, untrue, or made up by someone , then boy oh boy, either you lack basic logic building capabilities or you are just too stubborn and intellectually dishonest to admit that the Muslim guy infront of you is actually right and you are wrong. May Allah protect brother Hamza and guide sincere every sincere soul.
There is no gravity only density and buoyancy
What?!? Gravitation is a demonstrable fact.
@@Theo_Skeptomai good luck proving your theory with the scientific method
It’s not that they don’t know. It’s what you call ignorance
Ignorance means not knowing.
@@Theo_Skeptomai lmao. I’ll ignore you .. what does that mean? That I don’t know?
@@tnt9861 Please do!
Who was that geezer
Theosaurus?!?! 😂 …. A dinosaur of multiple names?!? Why are they talking about dinosaurs?
If I was an atheist and I heard alhamdulilah I would know I’m finished against hamza.
Never argue with an idiot
The odd and even example, isn’t logical, it’s 50/50 chance, but let’s say the guy who told it’s even brought evidence, such as the color of the container, the size of the container and the shape of the container and asked someone to believe him the number inside is even, now basically according to his claim if all are true we have a higher chance than 50% to believe what he says is true. Although it’s not a solid point to stand on as long as there’s no consequences to believe or disbelieve in his claim it’s more logical to believe. However when it comes to believing in god it’s something more straightforward the evidence are higher, yet with a consequence for not believing.
Why’s walter white there?! 😂
Atheists, next time you try to make a point rehears it or say it out loud first.
Atheist made their point hamza did not get the point is just talking rubbish with fancy talk as proud English he is
IT
Salam Ou Alikum Hamza! I just want to reach out via this comment section regarding the Godlogic debate I watched. I enjoy your work and you did well and I agreed with your approach with him but I was dissappointed to see you deny Issa (pbuh) as the Messiah, don’t shy away from that. We do believe that as Muslims. It doesn’t prove anything for Christians. Anyways, InshaAllah Ramada is going well for you. Take care.
WHEN YOU HAVE TO BRING PROPS TO A DEBATE ... YOUNG MAN YOU'VE ALREADY LOST. !
So if you go with thier definition of knowledge (justified true belief) then when hamza is talking about reasons he is just referring to the justified part. He won't have knowledge of something until he has reasons (justified) it is true and he believes it, and so in order to have the belief, hamza wants the justified part before the belief.
So it just seems they are talking past each other.
Yup - exactly. That's because we think there's qualitative differences between:
"I believe God exists" vs "I know God exists."
I think Hamza isn't quite understanding that we're talking about knowledge as a verb state: to know.
JTB is an attempt to say what conditions are required "to know P"
The person needs to believe P is true, have a justification and P must be true.
And as you say - Hamza is conflating "knowledge" with information (noun) so he thinks it's the justification condition.
But that just results in a tautology: "I know God exists because I have knowledge (information)."
From his reaction though I think Hamza hasn't come across JTB before or accounts of knowledge.
Wow, n i thought my understanding of english was bad 😂
Hamza where is this debate with godlogic
I have to admit this debate was really pointless
He mixed it up. Faith is a subset of knowledge and not the other way around.
Wrong. Knowledge is a subset of belief.
@@nuttynutmeg8972 The reason for Faith comes first and thts the knowledge.
@@muttystonecan I suggest you learn basic epistemology. Knowledge is a subset of belief. That’s a fact…it’s not up for debate.
Is there one God or three gods or no God?
La ilaha il Allah. One God.
What if there is a half a marble? 🤓
Who is going to give this guy fish and chips without a reason 🤔. Because hamza us giving him a lot of seasons with reasons 🤔. 😅😅
ARE YOU AT THE PARK TODAY SUNDAY 24TH MARCH ??? QUICKLY ANSWER 😊
What's he even saying 😭😭😭😭😂
Stop discussing, open that box and count them
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hamza should have pressed him on the point of why he rejects the claim (that God exists). Because it is a knowledge claim and evidence based claim. He rejected the claim without testing it which is irrational.
If the claim can not be falsified, then it can't be demonstrated to be true. How does one falsify such a claim?