Muslim Refutes Inconsistent Atheist Criticizing The Actions Of God! Muhammed Ali

The Need for Context in Religious Texts [00:00]

• The speaker, identifying as an atheist who believes in a higher power, seeks to understand religious narratives, particularly the divine punishment of people.
• They question the necessity of God punishing individuals by sending a flood or destroying cities like Sodom, suggesting God should wait for natural death.
• This perspective implies a perceived lack of patience in the divine.

"like I don't understand really the the need of God to punish us like he killed all the people with you know sending the huge flood and killing the sodomites like I don't understand why he had to kill them not wait until they just pass away and then send them to hell?"

Divine Actions as Consequences of Disbelief After Clear Signs [01:59]

• Religious texts must be understood in their full context; taking an end of a story without the whole narrative leads to confusion.
• Prophets of God come with signs – demonstrations of power beyond human capability – to prove their divine mandate.
• Noah spent 950 years calling his people to truth, providing signs, yet they continuously mocked him.
• After 950 years of rejection and mockery, Noah supplicated for divine action, as there was no hope for his people.
• Allah states in the Quran that once major, undeniable signs are given and rejected, there are no more warnings, only punishment.
• Examples like Moses parting the sea or his staff turning into a snake are signs humans cannot perform, demonstrating divine sending.
• The people of Tamud were given a significant sign from a mountain, which they disbelieved, leading to their punishment after being warned.

"So the people of no 950 years being called I like I don't know if people understand what 950 years are and he's being mocked continuously nothing there was no chance."

The Nature of Free Will and Divine Authority Over Life [07:33]

• The atheist finds the idea of God killing people for not acting as God desires problematic, especially when free will is granted.
• They argue that everyone dies eventually, questioning why God would intervene to end lives prematurely.
• The religious speaker counters that "natural death" is an atheistic concept; life and death are divinely controlled.
• God gives life and can take it back after providing every opportunity for a person to accept the message; this is part of the test.
• Extending a disbeliever's life by 10 or 20 years does not change their rejection if they have already seen undeniable proof.
• Those who are given extended time have not yet been presented with ultimate, undeniable proofs.
• God allows people who curse, insult, or burn scriptures to live because they haven't received the undeniable proof, remaining in their test period.

"God can take your life whenever he wants. He gave it to you to begin with. So when you talk about he gave us free will, take it away. He didn't take it away. He is giving you the choice in this life and the test and once you after every chance that has been given to you deny then yes you deserve to be punished."

The Origin of Life and the Problem of Consciousness [13:58]

• The atheist struggles with the concept of God taking life, even when the life was given by God, due to a strong valuation of human life.
• The religious speaker points out the inconsistency in blaming God if God does not exist, framing it as an atheistic "game."
• The origin of life is presented as a fundamental question science, particularly evolution, doesn't fully answer, especially concerning consciousness.
• Evolution addresses the physicality of life (genes, atoms, cells) but not the "hard problem of consciousness," which is not a physical entity.
• When a person dies, their physical body remains, but consciousness (the soul) is missing, a concept science cannot explain with physical tools.
• The argument is made that parents do not give true life, as they grieve and cannot restore it upon death.
• The concept of abiogenesis, the beginning of biological life from non-living matter, is raised as an unknown scientific question.
• The speaker notes that even scientists may resort to speculative theories like panspermia or alien intervention rather than accepting a creator.

"So life as a human being is composed of two things. Metaphysical aspect, which is your soul consciousness, and your physical being. So evolution doesn't help you there. was even an evolution. You can't even tell me an evolution. Okay, tell me as you a believer of evolution. Where did that cell come from?"

Reincarnation and the Value of Human Life [18:00]

• The atheist finds comfort in the idea of reincarnation, though they acknowledge a lack of proof, believing it might be true.
• This belief system accommodates the increasing human population by suggesting new souls are generated and some souls stop reincarnating after learning their lessons.
• The religious speaker challenges reincarnation, pointing out the lack of proof and logical inconsistencies, such as the increasing human population which doesn't fit a simple soul recycling model.
• The question of what constitutes good and bad, and how one earns a better reincarnation, remains unanswered within this framework.
• The atheist's valuation of human life is based on love and respect, leading to a stance against capital punishment.
• However, when faced with self-defense scenarios, the atheist concedes that taking a life might be permissible to save oneself or loved ones.

"So, the idea of it is there are some let's say new souls that are generated and some who just stop reincarnating because they've learned all of all of their lessons. They reach their goals and and they just stop coming back here."

Divine Intervention vs. Human Action and Arrogance [26:37]

• The core of the debate returns to the perceived double standard: why is it acceptable for humans to take a life in self-defense, but not for God to do so in his "context and wisdom"?
• The atheist's position against killing under any circumstance is challenged with a scenario of home invasion and mass slaughter, where self-defense is acknowledged as necessary.
• This leads to the realization that taking human life is permissible under certain human contexts.
• The argument is made that if humans can act to protect others, why is it wrong for God to act to prevent harm or corruption?
• The atheist struggles to explain why God's actions are judged differently, suggesting God chooses to protect some but not others, leading to accusations of emotional reasoning and arrogance for not admitting the inconsistency.
• The discussion concludes with the religious speaker urging the atheist to rethink their position logically rather than emotionally, emphasizing that comfort from a book does not equate to truth.

"So, why is it so bad when God takes human life in his own just context and wisdom? But with in your human context, it's okay. But when God does it, it's not okay because you value human life so much."