Here's a delicious irony brother Shabir - I showed an atheist the challenge in the Qur'an: [10:38] Or do they say, "He has forged it"? Say, "Then produce a single chapter like it, and call upon whomever you can, apart from God, if you are truthful." The atheist immediately demanded to know what criteria will be used to judge his attempt. 😂
Brother Shabir I would humbly request you to start CZcams streams and engage. I Missed you a lot, I have been following you since 2012 when I passed out from College and I learned a lot and today my hands are folded 🙏 and requesting you to please come back so that we can learn from you. You are a Gem my brother💎. May Allah preserve you and keep you healthy. Assalamualaikum
Still have not gotten one atheist to name the criteria they used to dismiss the evidence. A while back I was debating in comments and thought I had found a rare jewel: an atheist that wasn't arrogant, but I was disappointed to discover the person was a Christian.
The criteria for evidence is in the definition of evidence and other keywords that go along with evidence. Evidence: A body of facts (A point of objectively verifiable data) which are positively indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other. Testable: able to be tested or tried - if it is not testable it is not evidence. Falsifiable: able to be proved to be false - if the evidence you provide does not include a method to show that it could be false, it is not valid evidence. Repeatable: able to be done again - if, while testing the evidence it does not consistently provide positive results that support the claim, it is not good evidence. The types of evidence from weakest to strongest: Anecdotal Opinions [weakest] Animal & Cell Studies (experimental) Case Reports & Case Series (observational) Case-Control Studies (observational) Cohort Studies (observational) Randomized Controlled Trials (experimental) Systematic Review [Strongest]
@@AnotherViewer Lovely. Now, how about that criteria that you will use to judge the evidence offered? None of those are criteria which could determine if a tree is supports the existence of a Creator. What Criteria will you use to say that a tree is not evidence of creation?
@@logicalmuslim1590 "None of those are criteria which could determine if a tree is supports the existence of a Creator." If the evidence given does not meet that criteria, then the evidence does not support one hypothesis over another, thus the evidence can be rejected and the hypothesis will need different evidence that what was given.
Criteria are the standards you apply to evidence to judge whether the evidence supports the proposition. For example: The Cavendish experiment proves that masses attract, essentially proving the theory of gravity. The criteria for the experiment is: can we observe, and measure the attraction between two known masses. If the masses move towards each other, then we have shown masses attract so the criteria is can we observe two masses attracting. When it comes to a tree being evidence of a Creator, you need criteria that can determine whether or not a thing was designed.
@@logicalmuslim1590 _"you need criteria that can determine whether or not a thing was designed."_ The person making the claim needs to provide that criteria not the atheist.
@@markh1011 the claim is tree is evidence for a creator atheist deny that its evidence we ask them to provide a criteria for the evidence they will accept " since they don't agrre the tree is evidence"
@@themerneptah Are you actually serious with that statement? Providing evidence for such an important claim is very very important. All the attempts to dodge it speak volumes.
@@kashankhan6950 You're dodging like Shabir does. The topic here is proving the existence of your god. Can you do it? As you keep deflecting, the reasonable inference is that you cannot support the claim that your god exists. Can you do it? Don't dodge. Can you do it?
"Justice and Equality prevailed and such a system of justice was formed that the rest of the world became surprised" - Muhammad Qasim has seen the era of Peace amongst Muslims. He is the awaited Imam Al-Mahdi.
According to the definition of design, we must determine something about the design process in order to infer design. We do this by observing the design in process or by comparing with the results of known designs. The only example of known intelligent design we have is human design. In most cases, the inference of design is made because people cannot envision an alternative. This is simply the argument from incredulity. Historically, supernatural design has been attributed to lots of things that we now know form naturally, such as lightning, rainbows, and seasons. Claiming to be able to recognize design in life implies that non-life is different, that is, not designed. To claim that life is recognizably designed is to claim that an intelligent designer did not create the rest of the universe. Design does not require an anthropomorphized designer. Designs appear in clouds, for example, with no more of a designer than uneven heating, evaporation, and other natural causes. If the designer does not need a designer to create it, why should other things? Science does not limit itself to considering only natural causes. There have been numerous scientific investigations of phenomena which presumably do not have natural causes, such as the power of prayer (Astin et al. 2000; Cha et al. 2001; but see Flamm 2004, 2005; Krucoff et al. 2005), divination (Enright 1999; Randi 1982), and life after death (Schwartz et al. 2001). What matters to science is not that something be natural, but that observations can be objectively and reliably verified by others. As it stands, the design claim makes no predictions, so it is unscientific and useless. It has generated no research at all. I was thinking a bit more. Maybe this is an issue on definitions of the words being used. Here is what I mean when I use the word evidence and a few associated terms: Evidence: A body of facts (A point of objectively verifiable data) which are positively indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other. Testable: able to be tested or tried - if it is not testable it is not evidence. Falsifiable: able to be proved to be false - if the evidence you provide does not include a method to show that it could be false, it is not valid evidence. Repeatable: able to be done again - if, while testing the evidence it does not consistently provide positive results that support the claim, it is not good evidence.
Thank you for your input but the issue is about a criteria by which to adduce evidence to meet the criteria. The issue of design is secondary and irrelevant at this stage.
@@AllTruthRevealed This reply covered both what is evidence and what is design. The criteria for evidence is in the definition of evidence and other keywords that go along with evidence. Evidence: A body of facts (A point of objectively verifiable data) which are positively indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other. Testable: able to be tested or tried - if it is not testable it is not evidence. Falsifiable: able to be proved to be false - if the evidence you provide does not include a method to show that it could be false, it is not valid evidence. Repeatable: able to be done again - if, while testing the evidence it does not consistently provide positive results that support the claim, it is not good evidence. The types of evidence from weakest to strongest: Anecdotal Opinions [weakest] Animal & Cell Studies (experimental) Case Reports & Case Series (observational) Case-Control Studies (observational) Cohort Studies (observational) Randomized Controlled Trials (experimental) Systematic Review [Strongest]
@@elliot7205 It is the same criteria. If the evidence is not exclusively concordant with the claim, it is not evidence for the claim. Here, maybe we can do a thought experiment using a slight variation on the question: What evidence would you require to show that Khnum is actually the source of the Nile River?
As Shabir would state you have relied on previous information to formulate your view and as such cannot be used as an example you need to think of something that does not exist for your example to work. So on that basis a criteria is still needed.
Muhammad ﷺ in Muhammad Qasim Dreams 👉August 13, 2015- "Qasim go and tell all the Muslim leaders about me, that Muhammad ﷺ has come to us again to free his Islamic building from anti Islamic forces, and to rebuild it.” Search more about Muhammad Qasim Bin Abdulkarim's Dreams
@@AllTruthRevealed happy to hear you are fine alhumdulillah , i am fine thank you , i just missed your appearance , may Allah preserve you and your family .
In the context of the question posed unfortunately there is no atheist who can provide a criteria because the moment they provide a criteria they will not be atheists after that.
@@AllTruthRevealed _"In the context of the question posed unfortunately there is no atheist who can provide a criteria because the moment they provide a criteria they will not be atheists after that."_ How does that work? 1. I've given you an answer to your question. 2. You are dodging my question.
@@AllTruthRevealed To me criteria is a standard that can be used to judge something .In order to know that there is a creator one will have to have a universal criteria that is common to all that are created by the creator. My question to Shabir is what is the standard that is common to all creations. in other words name one universal characteristic that is common to his creation.
"i suggested that a tree if evidence for the creator" - Anyone can make suggestions. It's your burden to provide support for your suggestion. You're dodging that burden.
@@kashankhan6950 You've tried this script with me several times and every time so far you've given up defeated. In fact this very argument you're making now is a dodge. In the next post, other provide evidence that your god exists or admit that you can't do so. In the next post. You have 2 options. I'm waiting.
@@kashankhan6950 There it is. The theme of the thread was dodging. You came in to do more dodging. You were called out on your dodging. You did it again. 😅🤣🤣
What if an atheist was to say that the creator has went an evolution overtime so it was made up entity it shows human characteristics face, hands, seeing etc so it is a human construct?
@@elliot7205 Even then criteria would be required. Bear in mind my position is that a tree is evidence for the existence of a creator and by extension anything in the 'naturalistic' universe would logically be included.
@@AllTruthRevealed _"That poses an even bigger problem for atheists because it means their outlook is based on wilful ignorance!"_ No it means that when we don't know the answer to something the intellecually honest answer is to say "i don't know". Reaching for the god response every time we don't know the answer to something is an illogical and primitive approach that humans have been following for thousands of years.
What you're asking here is very vague - a criteria that we can use to deduce evidence to establish the existence of a creator? I'd ask you to reword that but I suspect you wouldn't do so even if you did respond. Lets go with this - The criteria that we start with is anything that can differentiate what is real from what is imaginary. If that seems vague it's because your question is incredibly vague.
@@elliot7205 _"The question is very specific"_ It's not specific, it's quite vague. I've given a response. Are you going to address it or continue to tap dance? _"It's not rocket science to be honest."_ Explaining the nature of reality is easy is it? Well I guess it might seem easy if your answer is "god did it...just accept it" But the rest of us would like something better than that. provide Can you at least try to address my previous post?
@@elliot7205 I've already answered in the other thread. You're being evasive. The question is intentionally vague. The answer is that we need a way to determine what is real and what is imaginary. If you can demonstrate that your claim is real and not imaginary then that is the criteria. I'm still waiting for a response. Simple.
I have spoken to Shabir about these issues. The word science means knowledge and that is inclusive not restrictive to any particular method my friend. By definition of there is a creator then the creator will provide the criteria not man. You seem open and honest than most atheists which is refreshing. If you go on Shabir videos you will find a vidoe about the existence of the creator with me you may find beneficial my friend. Your attitude compared to some is something I actually admire.
What is the criteria *you use* to determine the existence of your creator AND that you have the right creator? I've asked this in a couple of your videos and you refuse to answer. "so far, not one atheist has been able to blah blah" - Are you talking about the video you deleted because many atheists pointed out the flaws in your argument? 🤣🤦♂ *If your previous video was so successful then why did you delete it?* hmm?
'If' there is a Creator then by definition there can only be one logically speaking. If there is a Creator then there is no such thing as his or yours he is the Creator of everyone. He uses the comprehensive standard contained within Islam as it is the only standard that claims to be from the Creator in which the Creator has imparted information informing humanity of all the answers to the questions of a Creator. What is your objective standard you use?
@@elliot7205 _"'If' there is a Creator then by definition there can only be one logically speaking."_ I'm asking about what the criteria is and your response starts with "if", multiple times. You're responding with a scenario that begins with an assumption. I could do the same with any theology. "If" the greek gods were the real gods then blah blah. You need to offer something better than a scenario that relies on such an enormous assumption.
@@elliot7205 _"s it is the only standard that claims to be from the Creator in which the Creator has imparted information informing humanity"_ Christianity is the same.
Every person from india and pakistan are already hindu..a hindu just means a person from the indust valley...but if you mean hindu by beliving in 30 million gods thats just called nonsense not hindu. Btw salam shabir your my favorite speaker.
If you are an illogical person then it may seem so...seems to me if you have more than 2 brain cells it would make sense but i know you have half that if any at all and i dont blame you..not having red meat in your diet is makihg you angry
Tree is dependently arisen . So "dependent co arising "is the criteria.
You're the best brother Shabir, my favorite speaker among the dawah brother
JazakAllah'u khairan
Salaam Alekum brother, will you be attending speakers corner anytime soon?
Here's a delicious irony brother Shabir -
I showed an atheist the challenge in the Qur'an:
[10:38] Or do they say, "He has forged it"? Say, "Then produce a single chapter like it, and call upon whomever you can, apart from God, if you are truthful."
The atheist immediately demanded to know what criteria will be used to judge his attempt. 😂
Exactly. It is strange that not one atheist can provide a criteria. Shabir.
Salaam... It's been so loooong .. Aapke naye videos ka bhot intezaar kiya
Inshalla soon
Salam, so good to see brother Shabir, I was a bit concerned about him, as have not seen him around for some time!
Brother Shabir I would humbly request you to start CZcams streams and engage. I Missed you a lot, I have been following you since 2012 when I passed out from College and I learned a lot and today my hands are folded 🙏 and requesting you to please come back so that we can learn from you. You are a Gem my brother💎. May Allah preserve you and keep you healthy. Assalamualaikum
Salam my brother. Inshallah soon.
@@AllTruthRevealed I second that sentiment. You're needed now more than ever! Loved your videos. You're great at one and one dialogues!
Are new videos gonna come on the brane academy?
Yes Inshallah. Uploads begin next week.
Still have not gotten one atheist to name the criteria they used to dismiss the evidence.
A while back I was debating in comments and thought I had found a rare jewel: an atheist that wasn't arrogant, but I was disappointed to discover the person was a Christian.
The criteria for evidence is in the definition of evidence and other keywords that go along with evidence.
Evidence: A body of facts (A point of objectively verifiable data) which are positively indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other.
Testable: able to be tested or tried - if it is not testable it is not evidence.
Falsifiable: able to be proved to be false - if the evidence you provide does not include a method to show that it could be false, it is not valid evidence.
Repeatable: able to be done again - if, while testing the evidence it does not consistently provide positive results that support the claim, it is not good evidence.
The types of evidence from weakest to strongest:
Anecdotal Opinions [weakest]
Animal & Cell Studies (experimental)
Case Reports & Case Series (observational)
Case-Control Studies (observational)
Cohort Studies (observational)
Randomized Controlled Trials (experimental)
Systematic Review [Strongest]
@@AnotherViewer Lovely.
Now, how about that criteria that you will use to judge the evidence offered?
None of those are criteria which could determine if a tree is supports the existence of a Creator.
What Criteria will you use to say that a tree is not evidence of creation?
@@logicalmuslim1590 "None of those are criteria which could determine if a tree is supports the existence of a Creator."
If the evidence given does not meet that criteria, then the evidence does not support one hypothesis over another, thus the evidence can be rejected and the hypothesis will need different evidence that what was given.
@@AnotherViewer
Are you really sure?
That's not what he is asking.
Assalamuilkum.
Can you give an example of what you mean by a criteria?
Criteria are the standards you apply to evidence to judge whether the evidence supports the proposition.
For example:
The Cavendish experiment proves that masses attract, essentially proving the theory of gravity. The criteria for the experiment is: can we observe, and measure the attraction between two known masses. If the masses move towards each other, then we have shown masses attract so the criteria is can we observe two masses attracting.
When it comes to a tree being evidence of a Creator, you need criteria that can determine whether or not a thing was designed.
@@logicalmuslim1590
_"you need criteria that can determine whether or not a thing was designed."_
The person making the claim needs to provide that criteria not the atheist.
@@markh1011 the claim is tree is evidence for a creator
atheist deny that its evidence
we ask them to provide a criteria for the evidence they will accept " since they don't agrre the tree is evidence"
@@markh1011 us providing evidence/criteria for our claim is irrelevant
@@themerneptah Are you actually serious with that statement? Providing evidence for such an important claim is very very important.
All the attempts to dodge it speak volumes.
God bless
creator is not an entity, everything is created by human mind. Tree is somthing dependently arisen
Do you have a mind?
@@kashankhan6950 You're dodging like Shabir does.
The topic here is proving the existence of your god.
Can you do it?
As you keep deflecting, the reasonable inference is that you cannot support the claim that your god exists.
Can you do it?
Don't dodge.
Can you do it?
@@kashankhan6950 yes
@@markh1011 agree with your comment
@@noelkuruppa8965 show it to me
Shabir what is your view about atheism claiming to be the default position or is accepting a Creator the default position?
I’m not Shabir but I’m sure it’s the latter!
👌
"Justice and Equality prevailed and such a system of justice was formed that the rest of the world became surprised" - Muhammad Qasim has seen the era of Peace amongst Muslims. He is the awaited Imam Al-Mahdi.
According to the definition of design, we must determine something about the design process in order to infer design. We do this by observing the design in process or by comparing with the results of known designs. The only example of known intelligent design we have is human design.
In most cases, the inference of design is made because people cannot envision an alternative. This is simply the argument from incredulity. Historically, supernatural design has been attributed to lots of things that we now know form naturally, such as lightning, rainbows, and seasons.
Claiming to be able to recognize design in life implies that non-life is different, that is, not designed. To claim that life is recognizably designed is to claim that an intelligent designer did not create the rest of the universe.
Design does not require an anthropomorphized designer. Designs appear in clouds, for example, with no more of a designer than uneven heating, evaporation, and other natural causes.
If the designer does not need a designer to create it, why should other things?
Science does not limit itself to considering only natural causes. There have been numerous scientific investigations of phenomena which presumably do not have natural causes, such as the power of prayer (Astin et al. 2000; Cha et al. 2001; but see Flamm 2004, 2005; Krucoff et al. 2005), divination (Enright 1999; Randi 1982), and life after death (Schwartz et al. 2001). What matters to science is not that something be natural, but that observations can be objectively and reliably verified by others.
As it stands, the design claim makes no predictions, so it is unscientific and useless. It has generated no research at all.
I was thinking a bit more. Maybe this is an issue on definitions of the words being used. Here is what I mean when I use the word evidence and a few associated terms:
Evidence: A body of facts (A point of objectively verifiable data) which are positively indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other.
Testable: able to be tested or tried - if it is not testable it is not evidence.
Falsifiable: able to be proved to be false - if the evidence you provide does not include a method to show that it could be false, it is not valid evidence.
Repeatable: able to be done again - if, while testing the evidence it does not consistently provide positive results that support the claim, it is not good evidence.
Thank you for your input but the issue is about a criteria by which to adduce evidence to meet the criteria. The issue of design is secondary and irrelevant at this stage.
@@AllTruthRevealed This reply covered both what is evidence and what is design.
The criteria for evidence is in the definition of evidence and other keywords that go along with evidence.
Evidence: A body of facts (A point of objectively verifiable data) which are positively indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other.
Testable: able to be tested or tried - if it is not testable it is not evidence.
Falsifiable: able to be proved to be false - if the evidence you provide does not include a method to show that it could be false, it is not valid evidence.
Repeatable: able to be done again - if, while testing the evidence it does not consistently provide positive results that support the claim, it is not good evidence.
The types of evidence from weakest to strongest:
Anecdotal Opinions [weakest]
Animal & Cell Studies (experimental)
Case Reports & Case Series (observational)
Case-Control Studies (observational)
Cohort Studies (observational)
Randomized Controlled Trials (experimental)
Systematic Review [Strongest]
He is asking for the criteria to establish what is going to constitute evidence and what is not for a Creator.
@@elliot7205 It is the same criteria. If the evidence is not exclusively concordant with the claim, it is not evidence for the claim.
Here, maybe we can do a thought experiment using a slight variation on the question:
What evidence would you require to show that Khnum is actually the source of the Nile River?
As Shabir would state you have relied on previous information to formulate your view and as such cannot be used as an example you need to think of something that does not exist for your example to work. So on that basis a criteria is still needed.
Muhammad ﷺ in Muhammad Qasim Dreams
👉August 13, 2015- "Qasim go and tell all the Muslim leaders about me, that Muhammad ﷺ has come to us again to free his Islamic building from anti Islamic forces, and to rebuild it.”
Search more about Muhammad Qasim Bin Abdulkarim's Dreams
I love word play. 😂 my parents are my creator. And they never created trees.
How are you brother Shabbir ? .
Alhumdollilah I am fine. I pray all is fine with you.
@@AllTruthRevealed happy to hear you are fine alhumdulillah , i am fine thank you , i just missed your appearance , may Allah preserve you and your family .
@@fahad055 We will be at SC tomorrow IA.
Their brain is empty bro lol
In the context of the question posed unfortunately there is no atheist who can provide a criteria because the moment they provide a criteria they will not be atheists after that.
@@AllTruthRevealed exactly
@@AllTruthRevealed
_"In the context of the question posed unfortunately there is no atheist who can provide a criteria because the moment they provide a criteria they will not be atheists after that."_
How does that work?
1. I've given you an answer to your question.
2. You are dodging my question.
@@AllTruthRevealed To me criteria is a standard that can be used to judge something .In order to know that there is a creator one will have to have a universal criteria that is common to all that are created by the creator. My question to Shabir is what is the standard that is common to all creations. in other words name one universal characteristic that is common to his creation.
"i suggested that a tree if evidence for the creator" - Anyone can make suggestions. It's your burden to provide support for your suggestion. You're dodging that burden.
Here he is, do you have a mind?
@@kashankhan6950 You've tried this script with me several times and every time so far you've given up defeated.
In fact this very argument you're making now is a dodge.
In the next post, other provide evidence that your god exists or admit that you can't do so.
In the next post.
You have 2 options.
I'm waiting.
@@markh1011 once again Mark H fails to answer a simple yes/no question…
@@kashankhan6950 There it is.
The theme of the thread was dodging.
You came in to do more dodging.
You were called out on your dodging.
You did it again.
😅🤣🤣
@@kashankhan6950 My point proven.
Your addition to this thread has been fantastic. 👍
What if an atheist was to say that the creator has went an evolution overtime so it was made up entity it shows human characteristics face, hands, seeing etc so it is a human construct?
If one is going to suppose that then there will have to be something to measure against hence the need for a criteria! Shabir
What would be the flawed logic if an atheist relies on previous information to make something up?
@@elliot7205 Even then criteria would be required. Bear in mind my position is that a tree is evidence for the existence of a creator and by extension anything in the 'naturalistic' universe would logically be included.
If you don't prove why it is evidence doesn't that mean equally it could be evidence for extraterrestrials?
@@elliot7205 You will note I stated the 'naturalistic' universe which would include 'extraterrestials' so still a criteria would be required!
Asalamualikun Bro Shabir! The best answer an atheist can only give is, "I don't know ".
That poses an even bigger problem for atheists because it means their outlook is based on wilful ignorance!
@@AllTruthRevealed
_"That poses an even bigger problem for atheists because it means their outlook is based on wilful ignorance!"_
No it means that when we don't know the answer to something the intellecually honest answer is to say "i don't know".
Reaching for the god response every time we don't know the answer to something is an illogical and primitive approach that humans have been following for thousands of years.
What you're asking here is very vague - a criteria that we can use to deduce evidence to establish the existence of a creator? I'd ask you to reword that but I suspect you wouldn't do so even if you did respond. Lets go with this - The criteria that we start with is anything that can differentiate what is real from what is imaginary. If that seems vague it's because your question is incredibly vague.
The question is very specific. For evidence to be cogent you need an evidential criteria. It's not rocket science to be honest.
@@elliot7205
_"The question is very specific"_
It's not specific, it's quite vague. I've given a response. Are you going to address it or continue to tap dance?
_"It's not rocket science to be honest."_
Explaining the nature of reality is easy is it? Well I guess it might seem easy if your answer is "god did it...just accept it"
But the rest of us would like something better than that.
provide
Can you at least try to address my previous post?
Criteria to meet the evidence. Simple.
@@elliot7205 I've already answered in the other thread. You're being evasive.
The question is intentionally vague. The answer is that we need a way to determine what is real and what is imaginary. If you can demonstrate that your claim is real and not imaginary then that is the criteria.
I'm still waiting for a response.
Simple.
I have spoken to Shabir about these issues. The word science means knowledge and that is inclusive not restrictive to any particular method my friend. By definition of there is a creator then the creator will provide the criteria not man. You seem open and honest than most atheists which is refreshing. If you go on Shabir videos you will find a vidoe about the existence of the creator with me you may find beneficial my friend. Your attitude compared to some is something I actually admire.
What is the criteria *you use* to determine the existence of your creator AND that you have the right creator?
I've asked this in a couple of your videos and you refuse to answer.
"so far, not one atheist has been able to blah blah" - Are you talking about the video you deleted because many atheists pointed out the flaws in your argument? 🤣🤦♂
*If your previous video was so successful then why did you delete it?* hmm?
'If' there is a Creator then by definition there can only be one logically speaking. If there is a Creator then there is no such thing as his or yours he is the Creator of everyone. He uses the comprehensive standard contained within Islam as it is the only standard that claims to be from the Creator in which the Creator has imparted information informing humanity of all the answers to the questions of a Creator. What is your objective standard you use?
@@elliot7205
_"'If' there is a Creator then by definition there can only be one logically speaking."_
I'm asking about what the criteria is and your response starts with "if", multiple times. You're responding with a scenario that begins with an assumption.
I could do the same with any theology. "If" the greek gods were the real gods then blah blah.
You need to offer something better than a scenario that relies on such an enormous assumption.
@@elliot7205
_"He uses the comprehensive standard contained within Islam"_
What standard is used to determine that is the right standard?
@@elliot7205
_"s it is the only standard that claims to be from the Creator in which the Creator has imparted information informing humanity"_
Christianity is the same.
😂😂😂 go get some education
I have and the conclusion is that atheists are stumped by a tree!
@@AllTruthRevealed Your argument is fallacious.
@@markh1011 Please explain.
@@AllTruthRevealed I have started 2 threads on this page already doing so.
@@markh1011 Please restate.
Great argument sir. Hope you are or will become a Hindu in future
Thank you for your comment. Evidentially and applying logic, reason and rationality, one can only be an adherent of Islam.
Every person from india and pakistan are already hindu..a hindu just means a person from the indust valley...but if you mean hindu by beliving in 30 million gods thats just called nonsense not hindu. Btw salam shabir your my favorite speaker.
@@Krabby_Patty_XD as if your religion had an iota of logic.
If you are an illogical person then it may seem so...seems to me if you have more than 2 brain cells it would make sense but i know you have half that if any at all and i dont blame you..not having red meat in your diet is makihg you angry
I don’t think you know what criteria