You got to respect the young fella very intelligent compared to some hard core atheist who tend to present fallacious arguments, emotional ickiness, and ad hominem attacks but his brilliant may Allah swt guide him. You can tell when someone are intellectually engaging and will like to change if he or she are in faulty position.
@Damian didn't know you had knowledge of the unseen. {O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after [one's] faith. And whoever does not repent - then it is those who are the wrongdoers. O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy or backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Accepting of repentance and Merciful.} Quran 49:11-12
The argument would only be valid if it is proven that the cosmos started to exist, if it is proven that no natural thing can be necesssary and if it is proven that there is a supernatural realm. unfortunatly none of those things can be proven which means the argument is based on empty assumptions. Plus because you only have a version of god and not solid proof that your version of god is real and god can be conceived in different ways he is not a nb.
@@harvisingh6671 The key is rationality. I hear arguments about “creating something from nothing” for 30 minutes. Regardless if you believe in God or not, the concept is pretty simple.
if A and B are dependent on each other, that doesn't make them independent, because they need something else to keep them connected that set is also not independent, because they need something else to keep the connection. it will keep going forever, which will never exist until a necessary being that hold them all
As hijab said, even if the set keeps both A and B connected, it cannot be independent because it is composed of constituents that are dependent. And so the set is made up of dependent things, which makes it susceptible to destructability.
I don't understand your first point brother could you explain further, if a and b are dependent on each other why do they need someone else? For example a depends on b and b depends on a? Is this what you were referring to?
@@mrjoe9545 that component that keeps a and b connected, it cannot be independent, if it has the same physical properties as a and b, because it will require something else to keep it KEEPing a and b intact
Regarding the tragedy in Iran, this is a test of patience, indeed there has been a fatal mistake due to overdoing it, but there is no need to respond too much, the guilty must still be punished.
use the Quran and sunnah brothers these philosophical arguments arent the way. even me as a Muslim i dont see them as anything special or ground breaking to change my faith
It’s cause athiest don’t believe in any God and they neither believe Quran as word of God. If you want them to make them believe. Only few want scientific facts and evidence Philosophy is only option to make them think but you just can’t prove this easily that God exist. They will just make different scenario where Gdo isn’t required. Thus it’s annoying and will take you no point
Composition fallacy doesn't work. An example of the fact that the day is long but this does not mean that every single part of the day is long, does not work because every part of the day has potential within it. In other words, each part of the day has a certain amount of time, and when combined, it becomes a whole long day.
The real endgame is trying to find literally anything in the natural world that is non-contingent Or realising that even if you were to find it, it would require another contingency
@@chickenhappy3607 I wouldn't call it simple but essentially yeah I think it's just the academical type of talk brother Hijab be saying makes it sound like rocket science lol
Alhamdolillah subhanallah Allah hu akbar mashallah may Allah SWT guide all of us as well usa🇺🇸🇬🇧 Russia🇷🇺 Norway🇳🇴 Sweden🇸🇪 Denmark🇩🇰 Japan🇯🇵 on the straight path always amen Amen🥰 love from India
@@dl3492 You aren't making any sense. The Universe cannot be independent, as it depends on every aspect that makes it up. The Universe would be different if a planet was not there. Regardless of whether the impact is big or not, it would be different.
@@dl3492 No. You should use more reason. If there is a brick wall, it is dependant on the bricks that make it up. Similarly,, the Universe depends on every aspect of what makes it up, so it can't be independant.
it's a cowardly way to live, nevermind the fact that his passiveness means that he is taking one over the other, he just wants to claim that he doesn't.
it's not a cowardly way to live, merely a reasonable one if i think that two scenarios are equally possible because we cannot prove either one and proving either one requires knowledge that humans cannot and might never obtain, then i cannot see myself basing my entire way of life on it
@@Mitesse you already chose, you chose ur desires. you can neither prove or disprove that this world is just a simulation yet you live your life with the assumption that it is real. you are only hyper skeptic when it's convenient to you. nevermind the existance of a creator is more solid than even ur existance and what form u exist in. we can prove the existance of a creator in many ways, that is not the problem, the problem is that you want to use the wrong tool as proof. you want to put the metaphysical under a physcial microscope muchless the creator of the physcial and metaphysical. you can't even put all physical things under a microscope such as dark matter which we can barely prove based on calculations that we may be FAR off and we made the mistake rather than the dark matter existing.
@@PoeticSonic if i live in a simulation or not does not change my perception of life so i don't care about it, your point is invalid. the issue you're having is that you believe i care about everything elsw that is metaphysical. sure, i'll put some thought into it, because it's interesting, just as i put thought into a god, but i don't revolve my entire round about it. sure, i believe in the big bang theory, but i don't pray 5 times a day to it for me, the possibility of a god existing is far more unlikely than it not existing, so i have no reason to believe in one
Is Very Simple Creation Cannot Exist Without The Creator .And Also If It Needs Such Conversation As Proof Of The Creator Then Give Up . Creation Proves The Creator .
@DL So a bunch depending things somehow become independent? That's absolutely absurd and Muhammad hijab gave the analogy of the energy companies. You fail
just to verify what hijab is saying.. at least what i understood from it in abstraction, the components of the universe do not show any independence in fact its dependent so considering the established rule something cannot come from nothing in essence independence cannot come from dependence if we consider the causal chain as he explained it comprises a set of independent things which means the set is independent but in reality, we have a set of things which is dependant there for it cannot add up to be independent even if there are infinite of them correct me if I'm wrong
But why whould he choose impossible thing that may exist and we cannot understand it rather than logic thing that we understand, i'll choose neccessary being that created our universe because its the only logic thing for us....Mohammed Hijab you should tell him to choose more logical thing first rather then illogical things, and then show him the miracles of the Quran and this will make sure that he must choose because of hell and heaven.
While quantum mechanics and relativity are very unintuitive they give a more fundamental description of reality than our everyday experience. When considering the contingency argument, it is easier to consider it in terms of quantum particles, not the objects that are composed of them such as cups, phones and people, as they are more basic. Quantum theory indicates that there is no such thing as the flow of time but rather that there is a block of spacetime and every moment and place exists always. It is entirely equivalent to describe particles as moving forward in time or the opposite antiparticle moving back in time. Under this framework it doesn't make sense to describe states as contingent given they've always existed and have an equivalent relationship to other states before and after. If you assume that this spacetime couldn't help but come into existence it is entirely necessary.
I wasn't intending to express a view for or against the multiverse here. I think there are some good arguments for it but I don't think the evidence quite yet meets the standard that is usually demanded by science. However, I think my point stands either way - if there is a multiverse then there is an extra dimension to the block of spacetime with equivalent spacetime "slices" becoming distinguishable by decoherence but otherwise the argument is the same.
@@jmah5553 No, I wouldn't advocate for the growing block universe theory of time as I think the multiverse argument is most compatible with the future already existing. Subjectively we are experiencing a moment of time but the theory goes that there is nothing special about this moment. All history and the future is just as real as "now".
I understand your statement but I think you're overlooking that when misconceptions of God arise they are completely different from the core of what makes God a god. For example, everyone would agree that water is a substance/matter/object. If someone says water is only an idea/thought/concept, they have conceived water as something which even in another existence does not make sense in its form, so water being a substance is necessary in its basic existance. God as stated in the Quran is only one, is independent, does not beget and has not been begotten, and he is incomparable to anything which exists. I would like you to present to me something which has all of these attributes but is not God, for then in that case your argument would be proven correct.
@@locust3632 The problem here is that no one knows what a god is and everybody defines god differently because of that as we can see throughout history because we don't have any evidence of a god only story's from humans. We know what water is and what it's made so with all due respect but you compare apples with oranges. God as stated in the Quran is just another version of god which just shows how god is conceivable in multiple ways hence doesn't meet the standard of a NB. I can also make up an entity. There is a particle that is independent, not conceivable in any other way etc and the basis of everything that exist, everything depends on that particles existence. See? Now I also have a 'necessary being' that is not even supernatural.
Modern medicine has discovered that this place -- between the backbone and the ribs -- is the place where the cells that will form the testes first grow, and at a later stage of embryonic development they descend to the scrotum below the abdomen.
Universe can't be indepent because the reason one might believe in an indepent universe, is for getting rid of infinite regress of causal chains or actions. But a mindless matterial indepent universes can't cause nothing because at some point there was no event except the energy field of that indepent universe. So to begin an event in the universe, this universe either has to have mind to makee a choice that will start the first event or infinite regress which is out of discussion because the whole point of an independt universe was to get rid of infinite regress. So we left with a conscious universe, which is same as God just different terminology.
Simple, even if an infinite regress of universes exists, forbthe sake of arguement, ad absurda, it would still be required of contingent things, and if an entity is composed of contingent things, it is automatically rendered contingent, the set EXISTS and is deoendant upon its variables to exist. By DEFINITION. A set could not exist without its numbers. So in summary. THE TERNALITY OR INFINITY OF SOMETHING DOES NOT UNDERMINE ITS DEPENDANCY. Anything such as energy, which can e effected by external factors to change form is DEPENDANT AND CONTINGENT Analogy: we have the eternal sun with its eternal rays. Both are eternal however in abstraction the SUN COULD HAVE XISTED WITHOUT ITS RAYS, HOWEVER THE RAYS COULD NOT HAVE EXITED WITHOUT ITS SUN,meaning even caused apriori Analogy 2: we have th eternal ball on top an eternal pillow. Both eternal. HOWEVER THE INDENTATION UPON THE PILLOW IS DEPENDANT UPON THE BALL BEING THERE ON TOP OF THE PILLOW. Again caused apriori.
I am retracting my comment below because in abstraction without the contingent existence God is necessary in all of his majesty and he doesn't need existence of contingent thing for him to be necessary existence. [[ Same argument can be used agaist God what Hijab is making. For example God isn't necessary without the existence of contingent thing which points to a necessary existence. So if we can't see anything necessary within God without the existence of contingent existence then God can't also be necessary because in abstraction there is nothing in God which is necessary. ]]
Revise the definitions to the terms necessary and contingent. It will solve this problem for you . A necessary being means a being that must exist and it's not conceivable that it doesn't. It's not possible that it doesn't. Regardless of what's happening around . A contingent being is one whose existence and nonexistence are both possible . It's conceivable that it wouldn't exist . Now because there is room to possibilities for a contingent being , we can hereby discuss that someone could argue that the universe is necessary when explained by the necessary cause . In other words , the necessary being had a will to make a contingent being and as this contingent universe did already come into existence now ,then its existence is necessary based on the necessary being's knowledge and will .
O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after [one's] faith. And whoever does not repent - then it is those who are the wrongdoers. O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy or backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Accepting of repentance and Merciful. Qur'an 49:11-12
@@hassanmuse5606 constructive criticism is now ridiculing? Why would you take what i said so negatively when im stating my simple opinion so the brother can improve himself and we get better videos for people
@@housseinawada5866 you didn't critique him. All you said was "he's not intelligent enough". And that he should stay quiet. What was he wrong about? No one in discussion seemed to think he wasn't intelligent. I would say ali did enough inviting hijab into the conversation and allowing him to take over. If your intention was to constructively criticize ali I would advise, instead of saying something that would come off as an insult, you choose your words more carefully
Sahih Bukhari 6130: Narrated `Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for `Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar: I asked `Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. "
To accept Islam, you need to first accept that there's a creator. So they're(Ali/M.Hijab) trying to tackle the issue that the agnostic doesn't believe the universe *needs* a creator. It's a complicated argument for most people, I wouldn't say I fully understand it either, but to the extent of my understanding, it makes sense
Nice conversion. But the contingency argument is easy to deal with. All one needs to do is not accept/reject there are such things as 'contingent' or 'necessary'. The CA presupposes there are such categories. And usually the proponent of the CA never tries to justify why one should even accept such metaphysics. ie: one doesn't have to accept the underlying metaphysics the CA relies on. Against a modal anti-realist (there are no modal facts - modal semantics is fictional world building) like myself the CA is just not going to be considered.
You still have to deal with argument from composition which hijab is making. The universe is a dependent existence because it is composed of Constituent parts.
@@islamicmessage2419 It can be dealt with the same way because it suffers from the same issue - a person doesn't need to accept the underlying metaphysics the argument relies upon. If a person doesn't accept Hijab's metaphysics then the argument is dead in the water from the outset.
@@christaylor6574 By underlying metaphysics if you mean the self- evident knowledge of there being real distinctions in external reality outside which makes things different from other things & that's what causes composition. So, if you deny real distinctions then that's no different from solipsism because solipsism is denying the self evident reality or axiom of external world existing.
@@islamicmessage2419 Your an in error: 1. I never said that I "deny real distinctions." 2. I never said that I am "denying the self evident reality." I said that I don't accept your view of metaphysics when it comes to dependence. Not acceptance does not mean denial. 3. Appealing to something as 'self-evident' just goes to prove the point I am making: that theists like Hijab and yourself don't tend to make the effort to justify why someone should accept your view of metaphysics. Especially when it is not self-evident to the person your are arguing to. ie: saying it's "self-evident" to *you doesn't help progress your argument to someone who doesn't find it "self-evident".
@@christaylor6574 your denying what exactly? Are you denying that universe is composed of Constituents? If your denying then how do you explain reality being really divided as being distinct? If your not denying that cosmos is composed then the reasoning follows ie universe or cosmos exist because of its Constituents hence, is dependent.
Hijab making a jump when he is saying, in an indepent universe things are contingent in abstraction. But the indepent universe isn't a abstract existence but considered material object where everything is determined and in that sense it is necessary. So having a contingent thing in abstraction doesn't affect the necessary existence of that thing, because it doesen't exist in abstraction.
Hi Laro, just passed by and saw your comment and wanted to help. He's not stating the universe or its contents are abstract entities, but he means [ in abstraction = in isolation = a priori = in and of itself ]. So, the universe is the totality of everything. each thing within this totality is [ in abstraction = in isolation = a priori = in and of itself ] contingent/dependent; i.e. not self-existing or self-sustaining. So it's not necessary or independent. The sum of this totality is a sum dependent on this totality to exist. The set [a,b,c] is not independent, because it's dependent on those parts a, b and c. But those a, b and c parts [in the case of the universe] are the contingent dependent beings or things in and of themselves. So nothing is independent or necessary. So, the fact that this world exists now and we see it, is undeniable that it exists. So, how come such a dependent sum of dependent things exist. There has to be a foundational independent being outside of the universe. Note here that it might be something else other than God, and definitely not the universe as I said earlier. Is it God, is it something else?? I leave this for you to decide. But at least we can say now that the universe [or the totality of space-time continuum entities] is not the independent or necessary being.
@@AShaif I appreciate your explanation and I would like to add a little detail. In terms of set theory, universe might be not independent. But when atheist claim universe is itself seperate from the contingent universe we see, then this set theory logic doesn't work. And that's why Hijab is getting himself trapped by allowing existence of infinite regress in the world. That is because a mindless independent universe could be generating contingent universe randomly and only logical way to refute such universe would be to not allow infinite regress
@@AShaifAsalamj Alaykum brother it seems like you have a good understanding of this argument and I have some questions about it? Is there a way to contact you so we can talk about it? JazakAllah khair.
You are incorrect Allah does not have parts no Muslim has ever said this before. Allah is independent and according to the dictionary independent means: "not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence." This perfectly describes Allah as he depends on nothing other than himself to exist because independent comes from the root word 'interdependent' because they depend on nothing outside themselves. So your argument doesn't seem to stand.
The universe expanding is proof that the universe has a beginning. If the universe is expanding infinitely then you are in trouble, why? Well because if it's expanding them tomorrow it's bigger than it was today and that means today it was not infinite and that loop goes on forever. The universe having a size + always expanding proves that it is not infinite and MUST have a start. But leave the Kalam argument for a second and just think *Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they are sure of nothing!* ~Quran Surah Tur Verse 35-36
@@AbdouSalam220 We know little about time, infinity, existence and causation. So to posit an infinite, timeless, all powerful creator is insane, lazy thinking from Neolithic period.
Why does Islamic texts treat human beings like idiots, and dictate how every aspect of human behaviour should be performed and enforced. For example...i have heard that Islamic texts say a man should urinate squating down, not standing up. Like ladies do. Unbelievable. Christ on the other hand, just propergated Principals, and respects you enough to work out your own details on how to live your life. For example..."Love your enamies", is a principal difficult to practice, but pushes one to aim for a higher perpose. That is what a true religion should teach.
What are the parameters through which you came to the conclusion of what religions should teach ? Your limited Intellect, experience , knowledge? As compared to what ? God's wisdom ? Just stick to your lane and focus on either believing the evidence presented for the truthfulness of Islam ,or don't believe . Don't tell God what he is supposed to tell you.
when u piss standing up there’s a impurity that’s also retracted back to you in the process, unlike sitting down, almost impossible. it’s simple stuff you literally proved the point of islamic text just now…
Its not only Ali its also Hijab and everyone else. Dont understand your unnecessary comment. Makes the conversation atmosphere better and breaks the ice.
There was nothing wrong with Ali's argument or logic, the guy clearly didn't want an answer & preferred dancing around the truth. No amount of reasoning would have changed his mind that day.
whats happening. unlike in christendom. men marry only females. moms only abort if their lives in danger. no baby mamas in mideast with 9 baby daddies [we don't want that for our daughters]. our children do not transgender
@@ahmadkhan-uv7tv and how...why you don't take any initiative ...only for talking....you make a channel on any topic I will subscribe...but you only a keyboard warrior....anyone doing gud job in a particular field you want him to do it like the way you want why don't you come out of your comfort zone and take pain of raising issues you want to highlight...YOU ABIGGER JOKE(R)
we love you brother hijab... and we ask Allah to give you Paradise for all your time
we learn many thing from you
You got to respect the young fella very intelligent compared to some hard core atheist who tend to present fallacious arguments, emotional ickiness, and ad hominem attacks but his brilliant may Allah swt guide him. You can tell when someone are intellectually engaging and will like to change if he or she are in faulty position.
@Damian didn't know you had knowledge of the unseen.
{O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after [one's] faith. And whoever does not repent - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.
O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy or backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Accepting of repentance and Merciful.}
Quran 49:11-12
@Damian no way sherlock
JazakAllahu khairan
The entire concept requires 5 minutes max to come to a conclusion that a creator exist.
I think people just enjoy to explore.
The argument would only be valid if it is proven that the cosmos started to exist, if it is proven that no natural thing can be necesssary and if it is proven that there is a supernatural realm. unfortunatly none of those things can be proven which means the argument is based on empty assumptions.
Plus because you only have a version of god and not solid proof that your version of god is real and god can be conceived in different ways he is not a nb.
Only if you have a predefined thought.
@@harvisingh6671 The key is rationality. I hear arguments about “creating something from nothing” for 30 minutes. Regardless if you believe in God or not, the concept is pretty simple.
@@Just_logic so does God create the universe from himself or from nothing?
It’s difficult idea when you start exploring it . It requires dialogue.
@@harvisingh6671 from nothing. God is the only power that can do that.
We need, Shamsi, in this conversation to make it shorter!🤣🤪🤣🤣🤣
He has trouble with English speakers.
True 😂
He belongs to madkhali cult.
Yes he doesn’t waste any time 😂
@@meowmeowmeow2362 not really. Shamsi doesn't get involved in certain topics. He keeps it simple.
The English people always debate peaceful
Great job Mo
if A and B are dependent on each other, that doesn't make them independent,
because they need something else to keep them connected
that set is also not independent, because they need something else to keep the connection.
it will keep going forever,
which will never exist
until a necessary being that hold them all
Excellent point which absolutely makes sense.
As hijab said, even if the set keeps both A and B connected, it cannot be independent because it is composed of constituents that are dependent. And so the set is made up of dependent things, which makes it susceptible to destructability.
I don't understand your first point brother could you explain further, if a and b are dependent on each other why do they need someone else?
For example a depends on b and b depends on a? Is this what you were referring to?
@@mrjoe9545
that component that keeps a and b connected, it cannot be independent, if it has the same physical properties as a and b, because it will require something else to keep it KEEPing a and b intact
@@haithem8906 if a depends on b and b depends on a why would they need something else to depend on? Also isn't this like a circular argument?
SubhanaAllah 😩 😩 😩
Regarding the tragedy in Iran, this is a test of patience, indeed there has been a fatal mistake due to overdoing it, but there is no need to respond too much, the guilty must still be punished.
It’s explained very well. Atheist still denying it. May Allah guide him
And by the way, one water molecule is wet, but it's not the same wetness that we experience with billions of water molecules everyday.
The atheist lacks critical thinking. He doesn't want to know why dependent universe is the way it is and not any other way.
20:00 she's mesmerized by hijab.
and ali is trying so hard not to look at her
What's a simple way to explain why 3 dependant things coming together can't make an independent thing. The Trinity for example
Everyone will be a spec of dust
Dependent or indepent, just a spec
people who know they are right [hijab] love to debate those who are clearly wrong on a subject [trinity trigodism]
The heck is that dude at minute 31 behind Mr Hijab doing?
Ahhahaha that cracked me up I didn’t even notice that
use the Quran and sunnah brothers these philosophical arguments arent the way. even me as a Muslim i dont see them as anything special or ground breaking to change my faith
It’s cause athiest don’t believe in any God and they neither believe Quran as word of God. If you want them to make them believe.
Only few want scientific facts and evidence
Philosophy is only option to make them think but you just can’t prove this easily that God exist. They will just make different scenario where Gdo isn’t required. Thus it’s annoying and will take you no point
Composition fallacy doesn't work. An example of the fact that the day is long but this does not mean that every single part of the day is long, does not work because every part of the day has potential within it. In other words, each part of the day has a certain amount of time, and when combined, it becomes a whole long day.
as salamo alaikum
The real endgame is trying to find literally anything in the natural world that is non-contingent
Or realising that even if you were to find it, it would require another contingency
hope im not the only person who didnt understand a single sentence
It's okay u can always gain knowledge akhi it ain't that complicated lol
@@Moe.nadji5 it's a simple argument with big words
@@chickenhappy3607 I wouldn't call it simple but essentially yeah I think it's just the academical type of talk brother Hijab be saying makes it sound like rocket science lol
The talk is about the impossibility of 'infinite regress' but the agnostic assumes it to be possible.
I have no idea what they're talking about I'm just here for vibes
he don't know universe but talk like he understand the universe - to know God just look to ourself
Alhamdolillah subhanallah Allah hu akbar mashallah may Allah SWT guide all of us as well usa🇺🇸🇬🇧 Russia🇷🇺 Norway🇳🇴 Sweden🇸🇪 Denmark🇩🇰 Japan🇯🇵 on the straight path always amen Amen🥰 love from India
@DL
Troll
Mohammad hyjab is very true and so proud of him 🥺💓💓💓
@@dl3492 It would then be dependant on those parts
@@dl3492 You aren't making any sense. The Universe cannot be independent, as it depends on every aspect that makes it up. The Universe would be different if a planet was not there. Regardless of whether the impact is big or not, it would be different.
@@dl3492 No. You should use more reason. If there is a brick wall, it is dependant on the bricks that make it up. Similarly,, the Universe depends on every aspect of what makes it up, so it can't be independant.
@@dl3492 You are the one who is insincere. Are you saying that the wall doesn't depend on the bricks?
@@dl3492 No.
it's a cowardly way to live, nevermind the fact that his passiveness means that he is taking one over the other, he just wants to claim that he doesn't.
it's not a cowardly way to live, merely a reasonable one
if i think that two scenarios are equally possible because we cannot prove either one and proving either one requires knowledge that humans cannot and might never obtain, then i cannot see myself basing my entire way of life on it
@@Mitesse you already chose, you chose ur desires.
you can neither prove or disprove that this world is just a simulation yet you live your life with the assumption that it is real.
you are only hyper skeptic when it's convenient to you.
nevermind the existance of a creator is more solid than even ur existance and what form u exist in.
we can prove the existance of a creator in many ways, that is not the problem, the problem is that you want to use the wrong tool as proof.
you want to put the metaphysical under a physcial microscope muchless the creator of the physcial and metaphysical.
you can't even put all physical things under a microscope such as dark matter which we can barely prove based on calculations that we may be FAR off and we made the mistake rather than the dark matter existing.
@@PoeticSonic if i live in a simulation or not does not change my perception of life so i don't care about it, your point is invalid.
the issue you're having is that you believe i care about everything elsw that is metaphysical. sure, i'll put some thought into it, because it's interesting, just as i put thought into a god, but i don't revolve my entire round about it.
sure, i believe in the big bang theory, but i don't pray 5 times a day to it
for me, the possibility of a god existing is far more unlikely than it not existing, so i have no reason to believe in one
Is Very Simple Creation Cannot Exist Without The Creator .And Also If It Needs Such Conversation As Proof Of The Creator Then Give Up . Creation Proves The Creator .
السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ
Assalamu’alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh
وعليكم السلام ورحمه الله وبركاته
@DL
So a bunch depending things somehow become independent? That's absolutely absurd and Muhammad hijab gave the analogy of the energy companies. You fail
Ali needs to stop interrupting
5:54 what is this? audhubillah!
just to verify what hijab is saying.. at least what i understood from it
in abstraction, the components of the universe do not show any independence in fact its dependent
so considering the established rule something cannot come from nothing in essence independence cannot come from dependence
if we consider the causal chain as he explained it comprises a set of independent things which means the set is independent
but in reality, we have a set of things which is dependant there for it cannot add up to be independent even if there are infinite of them
correct me if I'm wrong
He only said it for the sake of argument. 20:25
This is nice that its peaceful but it is mental gymnastics you are not getting anywhere just postulations
Need shamsiiioo
Islam is easier than this
This is not islam, it's philosophy.
contingency argument can grant infinite regression..but not kalam cosmological argument..
care to explain?
@@boredalchemist infinite regression of contingent being still need an explanation outside that infinite set which is necessary being..
@@tobi4637 first you need to explain why infinite regression of the contingent being would be a necessary part of the contingent being
@@boredalchemist something that made up of part is contingent weither it finite or infinite..
@@tobi4637 well Muslims do not believe Allah is made up of parts
❤️❤️❤️🌹🌹🌹
When did Fanny packs come back into style?
But why whould he choose impossible thing that may exist and we cannot understand it rather than logic thing that we understand, i'll choose neccessary being that created our universe because its the only logic thing for us....Mohammed Hijab you should tell him to choose more logical thing first rather then illogical things, and then show him the miracles of the Quran and this will make sure that he must choose because of hell and heaven.
Jump to the middle .. all of it are the same argument .
While quantum mechanics and relativity are very unintuitive they give a more fundamental description of reality than our everyday experience. When considering the contingency argument, it is easier to consider it in terms of quantum particles, not the objects that are composed of them such as cups, phones and people, as they are more basic. Quantum theory indicates that there is no such thing as the flow of time but rather that there is a block of spacetime and every moment and place exists always. It is entirely equivalent to describe particles as moving forward in time or the opposite antiparticle moving back in time. Under this framework it doesn't make sense to describe states as contingent given they've always existed and have an equivalent relationship to other states before and after. If you assume that this spacetime couldn't help but come into existence it is entirely necessary.
I wasn't intending to express a view for or against the multiverse here. I think there are some good arguments for it but I don't think the evidence quite yet meets the standard that is usually demanded by science. However, I think my point stands either way - if there is a multiverse then there is an extra dimension to the block of spacetime with equivalent spacetime "slices" becoming distinguishable by decoherence but otherwise the argument is the same.
@@jmah5553 No, I wouldn't advocate for the growing block universe theory of time as I think the multiverse argument is most compatible with the future already existing. Subjectively we are experiencing a moment of time but the theory goes that there is nothing special about this moment. All history and the future is just as real as "now".
A necessary being can nog be concieved in a different way, god however can be which refutes god being a necessary being.
I understand your statement but I think you're overlooking that when misconceptions of God arise they are completely different from the core of what makes God a god. For example, everyone would agree that water is a substance/matter/object. If someone says water is only an idea/thought/concept, they have conceived water as something which even in another existence does not make sense in its form, so water being a substance is necessary in its basic existance. God as stated in the Quran is only one, is independent, does not beget and has not been begotten, and he is incomparable to anything which exists. I would like you to present to me something which has all of these attributes but is not God, for then in that case your argument would be proven correct.
@@locust3632 The problem here is that no one knows what a god is and everybody defines god differently because of that as we can see throughout history because we don't have any evidence of a god only story's from humans. We know what water is and what it's made so with all due respect but you compare apples with oranges.
God as stated in the Quran is just another version of god which just shows how god is conceivable in multiple ways hence doesn't meet the standard of a NB.
I can also make up an entity. There is a particle that is independent, not conceivable in any other way etc and the basis of everything that exist, everything depends on that particles existence. See? Now I also have a 'necessary being' that is not even supernatural.
Just because the universe has a set amount of energy(don’t argeee with that statement) doesn’t mean SOMEONE has to set the amount.
bible ' sun orbits the earth ' lol
@@etzelkaplan9677 ok and?
Quran says semen comes from between the back bone and the ribcage
Also not Christian
@@randallfe semen from that region has been scientifically proven..
@@ajustman7535 there’s no reproductive between the backbone and ribcage.
Modern medicine has discovered that this place -- between the backbone and the ribs -- is the place where the cells that will form the testes first grow, and at a later stage of embryonic development they descend to the scrotum below the abdomen.
That guy needs to talk to his ego...
ikr hijab's ego is bigger than hijab he needs to wear a hijab to cover it up
Universe can't be indepent because the reason one might believe in an indepent universe, is for getting rid of infinite regress of causal chains or actions. But a mindless matterial indepent universes can't cause nothing because at some point there was no event except the energy field of that indepent universe. So to begin an event in the universe, this universe either has to have mind to makee a choice that will start the first event or infinite regress which is out of discussion because the whole point of an independt universe was to get rid of infinite regress.
So we left with a conscious universe, which is same as God just different terminology.
Can we just start speaking English then, believing in God would be easier.
Simple, even if an infinite regress of universes exists, forbthe sake of arguement, ad absurda, it would still be required of contingent things, and if an entity is composed of contingent things, it is automatically rendered contingent, the set EXISTS and is deoendant upon its variables to exist. By DEFINITION. A set could not exist without its numbers. So in summary. THE TERNALITY OR INFINITY OF SOMETHING DOES NOT UNDERMINE ITS DEPENDANCY. Anything such as energy, which can e effected by external factors to change form is DEPENDANT AND CONTINGENT
Analogy: we have the eternal sun with its eternal rays. Both are eternal however in abstraction the SUN COULD HAVE XISTED WITHOUT ITS RAYS, HOWEVER THE RAYS COULD NOT HAVE EXITED WITHOUT ITS SUN,meaning even caused apriori
Analogy 2: we have th eternal ball on top an eternal pillow. Both eternal. HOWEVER THE INDENTATION UPON THE PILLOW IS DEPENDANT UPON THE BALL BEING THERE ON TOP OF THE PILLOW. Again caused apriori.
I am retracting my comment below because in abstraction without the contingent existence God is necessary in all of his majesty and he doesn't need existence of contingent thing for him to be necessary existence.
[[ Same argument can be used agaist God what Hijab is making. For example God isn't necessary without the existence of contingent thing which points to a necessary existence. So if we can't see anything necessary within God without the existence of contingent existence then God can't also be necessary because in abstraction there is nothing in God which is necessary. ]]
Revise the definitions to the terms necessary and contingent. It will solve this problem for you .
A necessary being means a being that must exist and it's not conceivable that it doesn't. It's not possible that it doesn't. Regardless of what's happening around . A contingent being is one whose existence and nonexistence are both possible . It's conceivable that it wouldn't exist .
Now because there is room to possibilities for a contingent being , we can hereby discuss that someone could argue that the universe is necessary when explained by the necessary cause . In other words , the necessary being had a will to make a contingent being and as this contingent universe did already come into existence now ,then its existence is necessary based on the necessary being's knowledge and will .
i like his quiet girlfriend lucky
Me too
Ali dawah is not intelligent enough for this type of debate he should just stay quiet instead of ruining the flow
O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after [one's] faith. And whoever does not repent - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.
O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy or backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Accepting of repentance and Merciful.
Qur'an 49:11-12
he never intelligent for anything
@@hassanmuse5606 constructive criticism is now ridiculing? Why would you take what i said so negatively when im stating my simple opinion so the brother can improve himself and we get better videos for people
@@housseinawada5866 you didn't critique him. All you said was "he's not intelligent enough". And that he should stay quiet. What was he wrong about? No one in discussion seemed to think he wasn't intelligent. I would say ali did enough inviting hijab into the conversation and allowing him to take over. If your intention was to constructively criticize ali I would advise, instead of saying something that would come off as an insult, you choose your words more carefully
@@hassanmuse5606 i'm sorry for ali dawah, i think he should stick to a less intelligent audience, no offense this is a constructive criticism.
Sahih Bukhari 6130: Narrated `Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for `Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar: I asked `Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. "
Is this suppose to be DAW’AH ……?
SubhaanAllah A’JEEB
To accept Islam, you need to first accept that there's a creator. So they're(Ali/M.Hijab) trying to tackle the issue that the agnostic doesn't believe the universe *needs* a creator.
It's a complicated argument for most people, I wouldn't say I fully understand it either, but to the extent of my understanding, it makes sense
@@manoflegacy6738 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣…ooookkkk
Nice conversion.
But the contingency argument is easy to deal with.
All one needs to do is not accept/reject there are such things as 'contingent' or 'necessary'. The CA presupposes there are such categories. And usually the proponent of the CA never tries to justify why one should even accept such metaphysics.
ie: one doesn't have to accept the underlying metaphysics the CA relies on.
Against a modal anti-realist (there are no modal facts - modal semantics is fictional world building) like myself the CA is just not going to be considered.
You still have to deal with argument from composition which hijab is making.
The universe is a dependent existence because it is composed of Constituent parts.
@@islamicmessage2419 It can be dealt with the same way because it suffers from the same issue - a person doesn't need to accept the underlying metaphysics the argument relies upon. If a person doesn't accept Hijab's metaphysics then the argument is dead in the water from the outset.
@@christaylor6574 By underlying metaphysics if you mean the self- evident knowledge of there being real distinctions in external reality outside which makes things different from other things & that's what causes composition.
So, if you deny real distinctions then that's no different from solipsism because solipsism is denying the self evident reality or axiom of external world existing.
@@islamicmessage2419 Your an in error:
1. I never said that I "deny real distinctions."
2. I never said that I am "denying the self evident reality."
I said that I don't accept your view of metaphysics when it comes to dependence. Not acceptance does not mean denial.
3. Appealing to something as 'self-evident' just goes to prove the point I am making: that theists like Hijab and yourself don't tend to make the effort to justify why someone should accept your view of metaphysics. Especially when it is not self-evident to the person your are arguing to.
ie: saying it's "self-evident" to *you doesn't help progress your argument to someone who doesn't find it "self-evident".
@@christaylor6574 your denying what exactly?
Are you denying that universe is composed of Constituents?
If your denying then how do you explain reality being really divided as being distinct?
If your not denying that cosmos is composed then the reasoning follows ie universe or cosmos exist because of its Constituents hence, is dependent.
Hijab making a jump when he is saying, in an indepent universe things are contingent in abstraction. But the indepent universe isn't a abstract existence but considered material object where everything is determined and in that sense it is necessary. So having a contingent thing in abstraction doesn't affect the necessary existence of that thing, because it doesen't exist in abstraction.
Hi Laro, just passed by and saw your comment and wanted to help. He's not stating the universe or its contents are abstract entities, but he means [ in abstraction = in isolation = a priori = in and of itself ]. So, the universe is the totality of everything. each thing within this totality is [ in abstraction = in isolation = a priori = in and of itself ] contingent/dependent; i.e. not self-existing or self-sustaining. So it's not necessary or independent.
The sum of this totality is a sum dependent on this totality to exist. The set [a,b,c] is not independent, because it's dependent on those parts a, b and c. But those a, b and c parts [in the case of the universe] are the contingent dependent beings or things in and of themselves. So nothing is independent or necessary. So, the fact that this world exists now and we see it, is undeniable that it exists. So, how come such a dependent sum of dependent things exist. There has to be a foundational independent being outside of the universe. Note here that it might be something else other than God, and definitely not the universe as I said earlier. Is it God, is it something else?? I leave this for you to decide. But at least we can say now that the universe [or the totality of space-time continuum entities] is not the independent or necessary being.
@@AShaif I appreciate your explanation and I would like to add a little detail. In terms of set theory, universe might be not independent. But when atheist claim universe is itself seperate from the contingent universe we see, then this set theory logic doesn't work. And that's why Hijab is getting himself trapped by allowing existence of infinite regress in the world. That is because a mindless independent universe could be generating contingent universe randomly and only logical way to refute such universe would be to not allow infinite regress
@@AShaifAsalamj Alaykum brother it seems like you have a good understanding of this argument and I have some questions about it? Is there a way to contact you so we can talk about it?
JazakAllah khair.
These guys cannot see the flaw in their own argument
Allah is dependent (by their logic) because allah has parts
car parts ?
@@etzelkaplan9677 no
@@randallfe where did you get that?
You are incorrect Allah does not have parts no Muslim has ever said this before. Allah is independent and according to the dictionary independent means:
"not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence."
This perfectly describes Allah as he depends on nothing other than himself to exist because independent comes from the root word 'interdependent' because they depend on nothing outside themselves. So your argument doesn't seem to stand.
@@alafiatemon3035 he literally said he has a shin a hand etc it’s in the Quran and sunnah(sunni)
Kalam assumes universe must have a beginning...WHO SAYS?
You don’t believe the universe has a beginning?
The universe expanding is proof that the universe has a beginning. If the universe is expanding infinitely then you are in trouble, why? Well because if it's expanding them tomorrow it's bigger than it was today and that means today it was not infinite and that loop goes on forever. The universe having a size + always expanding proves that it is not infinite and MUST have a start. But leave the Kalam argument for a second and just think
*Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they are sure of nothing!*
~Quran Surah Tur Verse 35-36
this is the contingency argument.
@rai atef We know little about time, existence, infinity and causation...so why assume a complicated being called God as a creator? Lazy thinking!
@@AbdouSalam220 We know little about time, infinity, existence and causation. So to posit an infinite, timeless, all powerful creator is insane, lazy thinking from Neolithic period.
Therefore people in prison are victims according to his logic. Absurd to hold believe in that.
How the hell did you come to that conclusion?🤣 what's an absolutely ridiculous thing to say
Why does Islamic texts treat human beings like idiots, and dictate how every aspect of human behaviour should be performed and enforced. For example...i have heard that Islamic texts say a man should urinate squating down, not standing up. Like ladies do. Unbelievable.
Christ on the other hand, just propergated Principals, and respects you enough to work out your own details on how to live your life. For example..."Love your enamies", is a principal difficult to practice, but pushes one to aim for a higher perpose. That is what a true religion should teach.
What are the parameters through which you came to the conclusion of what religions should teach ?
Your limited Intellect, experience , knowledge? As compared to what ? God's wisdom ?
Just stick to your lane and focus on either believing the evidence presented for the truthfulness of Islam ,or don't believe . Don't tell God what he is supposed to tell you.
when u piss standing up there’s a impurity that’s also retracted back to you in the process, unlike sitting down, almost impossible. it’s simple stuff you literally proved the point of islamic text just now…
Why is Ali always trying to make jokes and stop the flow of the conversation like a little kid
It's sometimes required to be friendly and sociable
Its not only Ali its also Hijab and everyone else. Dont understand your unnecessary comment. Makes the conversation atmosphere better and breaks the ice.
@@SPeeDKiLL45 ali's humor is highschool humor dude, it's not even funny nor constructive. he should stay silent, it's better for everybody
shame, Ali tried hard, may he study harder to gain understanding
There was nothing wrong with Ali's argument or logic, the guy clearly didn't want an answer & preferred dancing around the truth. No amount of reasoning would have changed his mind that day.
@@fsj437i6 yes the guy was dancing, but Hijab pinned him down
why u guys don't talk about what is happening in Muslim country?
What's that got to do with atheism
whats happening. unlike in christendom. men marry only females. moms only abort if their lives in danger. no baby mamas in mideast with 9 baby daddies [we don't want that for our daughters]. our children do not transgender
Who has stopped you...why don't you start talking about it
@@haxseenlike u guys making Islam as a joke
@@ahmadkhan-uv7tv and how...why you don't take any initiative ...only for talking....you make a channel on any topic I will subscribe...but you only a keyboard warrior....anyone doing gud job in a particular field you want him to do it like the way you want why don't you come out of your comfort zone and take pain of raising issues you want to highlight...YOU ABIGGER JOKE(R)
Allah is composed of pieces therefore by this guys logic allah is dependent.
Yeah no Muslim believes this.
Try arguing of what Muslims actually believes not your own made up thinking.
dude on cross disagrees ' Allaha Allaha why have thou forsaken me '
Thats false.
Hijab means by pieces something that can be removed, destroyed or added. In his book 'burhan' and many of his debates he says this.
@@Strijder013
Then that rules out the energy. Please tell me what can be added removed or destroyed from energy
30:52-31:05 The guy behind Muhammad Hijab...
Is that an impression of Zoidberg?