Ustad Hamza Tzortzis Did A Seminar On "How To Give Dawah To Atheist & Agnostic" . One Of The Best Series, On How To Give Dawah To Atheist. I Highly Recommend It. This Series will give you correct Framework , The Right stepping stones in order for you to walk on, In order to reach a certain Destination, It will give you right Foundations and the conceptual tools in order for you to understand how to articulate a compassionate and Intelligent case for Islam to our brothers and sisters in Humanity. Link Of The Playlist: czcams.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg2TvzrH5vEdqgboebkksKLq.html Do Check Out These Playlist..I Highly Recommend Arguments For The Existence Of God: czcams.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg3taF93a9ThvdYOSvqSGzvp.html Islam And Liberalism: czcams.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg0aguMql_QAe-BZ6RnNJu52.html Islam And Feminism: czcams.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg1Vv22K2hmwOCAWGUYGvmvb.html Islam And Science: czcams.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg2cs-pBAnRA_wrTF7fgzSN6.html Islam And Evolution: czcams.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg1n9XpyooRdOiTR2z8iLG9j.html Dealing With Doubts: czcams.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg19DfEtNiWOyzfhvnzgvw7c.html
I don't think it's the best, it is good but by far the best argument I've heard was Asadullah's Fitra Argument. Still a good video and may Allah reward you Ameen.
Hi. I would like to know why or how the PSR (principle sufficient Reason ) is true. Why do ALL contingent existence need and explanation. This is the only part of the argument I Don't understand.
From nothing comes nothing so if something comes from nothing it automatically needs an explanation. And if something comes from nothing then it has a beginning which makes it contingent. And if you say that something can come from nothing then maybe you are using the definition of nothingness of richard dawkins but that isn't the real nothingness. Also if you really believe something can come from nothing then you would have to allow all sorts of absurdities and you would still need to explain why this thing came into existence now and not earlier or after. If you say that the world is pre eternal then you run into the problem of infinite regress
Yes it can be. The question remains why does the godhead has only three persons ? Couldve been persons of different numbers. Therfore needs an external explanation.
How do you prove that God must continue to exist in order for the universe to exist? All I can comprehend from the contingency argument is that God's existence was necessary to create the universe in the first place.
MashaAllah. Nice explanation brother Hijab. But brother Hijab, why can we just not consider the fundamental constants of the universe to be that necessary existance? Although, I agree, at the moment our 2 fundamental theories of the universe, general relativity and QFT are incomplete and just approximations. We have around 19 fundamental constants using which we describe the universe (As Muslims we believe they are fine tuned) but we know some of them or all of them could have come into existance immediately after big bang and had otherwise not existed before. But we as humanity are working towards a theory of everything. And this theory may consist of an equation with as little as just 1 fundamental constant. The SuperString theory is one such example. Why can we not postulate that fundamental constant to be the necessary existance? Why necessary existance has to be a God? If the necessary existance is not conscious then if might as well be just some universal constant or some fundamental behaviour of Nothingness that gives rise to universes. Ours just happens to be one. And so far, with our repeated observations, this seems to be much simpler an explanation and much less speculative than the existance of God, or the existance of some sort of Simulation made by some highly intelligent alien species or the matrix or whatever else lots of Athiests seem to believe. I know this is an old video. But I just found this video and I really need to know the answer to this question before I am myself confident enough in using contingency as an argument for God?
“fundamental behaviour of nothingness” I think you mean, fundamental behaviour of the fabric of reality. Nothingness is not a thing that can do things.
@@aaaaaaaaaaaa9023 Brother the problem is that the true philosophical nothingness is extremely unstable and does not exist and when we try to achieve it, we realise it takes a lot of energy to create it and the moment we get close to its creation, it disintegrates in quark anti-quark pairs. Thats what I meant by the fundamental behaviour of nothingness.
I am not an Islamophobe in that I never thought that all Muslims were terrorists and did not agree with America's constant wars in the middle east, but I did think that virtually all Muslims were antisemitic and I was deeply impressed with these two being so welcoming to the Jewish caller. It taught me to view Islam in a new way.
I AM. NOT AN. ATHEIST. I AM AGNOSTIC. THE CONTINGENCY ARGUMENT IS NOT THE TYPE. OF. ARGUMENT THAT KEEPS ME AWAKE AT. NIGHT. WONDERING IF I SHOULD GO BACK TO THEISM.
Let initial existence = E(i) If a new element j from nothing is added to E(i) it becomes E(i + j). Now E(i) is not the same to E(i+j). It is a false assumption to conclude that j has no effect on E(i) because E(i+j) is a new existence. The only Saboor in the scene is different from the scene where there are S and MH especially if MH came from non-existence.
Sir, He said if possible existence gets removed it's non existence does not effect our existence. i.e in your example if it becomes E(i+j) then j will not effect the *existence* of E(i). But yeah surely there will be effect but the effect will not be such that it disrupts existence of eachother.
Also, Sir He did not talk about cause and effect because some people like Determinist may not agree with it. What he use is dependency, Reliance, Contingency of possible existence over the Necessary existence.
It’s possible for a necessary existence, to which all possible existences originate, once existed but now doesn’t. For example, I could not exist without my parents. But once I start to exist my continued existence is not dependant on them. Take my parents away and I can still exist. Something necessary and non contingent created the universe (ok), but it does not necessarily exist now. Also the universe could have been created by a contingent entity, which was created by a non contingent entity. Or in fact a chain of any number of contingent entities with an originating non contingent entity. That non contingent entity might have nothing to do with the universe, and the contingent creator of the universe no longer exists. As an example, I can create a computer program, but that’s doesn’t mean I’m non contingent. I’m contingent on my parents who may know nothing about the program. My ceasing to exist does not destroy the program. It can still exist without me even though I created it. Necessity is both spacial AND temporal. It can be necessary at one point in time, but not another. Looking forward to the next videos where it is shown to exist now, shown to be a being and not a thing, shown to be a God, then shown to be a specific God. Then I’ll follow that God.
He concedes that an infinite chain can be the necessary existence? I havent watched the full video but can he even deduce the necessary existence is a conscious being? If not then it is no god at all and his argument does not take someone out of atheism.
An existence that is unconscious cannot be necessary. How? Since it is unconscious, it has no will. If it has no will, it must be functioning on laws that it did not create/impose. Hence, it is dependent on those laws to exist and function. The argument from contingency is a particularisation argument, meaning that the necessary existence must have given all the possible existences their limitations, meaning the necessary existence has a will and hence is conscious. Hence, it is the one and only God.
@@Fatima_33 Why can those laws not be an attribute of the necessary foundation? The same way will is an attribute of god? These laws from the necessary foundation then gave rise to our contingent universe?
@@sorthist9007 No, then it requires further explanation on its finitude/limitation and its contingency. How can a foundation that's unconscious/unintelligent without a will or potential even give rise to rationality and and humans with wisdom/intellect/knowledge/free will/subjective consciousness/intuition etc lmao like yall atheists always want to find another option that's infinitely absurd rather than accepting and submitting your will to God. Like who even placed your soul/identity in your specific body? Cmon its not rocket science its common sense and intuition/inference to the best and obvious explanation. Just clean your "diseased" heart and seek the truth with sincerity instead of having a bias and trying to deny it at every instance. If ur not willing to accept then u will never and u will suffer the consequences of that in the hereafter, u will have literally no one to blame but urself.
There is a hadith where Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم has said that we have to beg Allah for help and he said also that we do not beg for the help to someone which is deaf and blind. In short, Allah has the qualities of perfection, i.e. Allah has the highest qualities that necessarily belong to his essence. Allah has no attributes of weakness or he would be dependent. Allah is the independent one and eternal. If one does not have a healthy Fitrah to understand it then he must work on it. I would recommend you to watch the video. czcams.com/video/KofTB3eyoCE/video.html
Going from atheist to deist does nothing. Both of them are radically different than theism. The hard work is moving a deist to one particular theistic belief. Even if you have an atheist accept this argument, you have a looooong way to go from there, logically or empirically. That’s the hard bridge to cross, and one that no theist has been successful with.
Do you have a revelation from GOD (NAUZUBILLAH) or direct inspiration thorough which you came to this conclusions? And btw diesm agrees that there is GOD while atgiesm denies .
@@MuhammadHassan200 I didn’t really make an argument. Just commented on that lack of utility that a deistic claim has. As far as impact on our lives, a deistic god is indistinguishable from a real god. That’s one assertion, can you show me how a deistic god impacts our lives, or how we can get to a theistic god without adding presuppositions? And no, revelation is a private matter and has no place in public discourse. I’m not denying your experience, but to anyone outside of you, it’s impossible to discern between a revelation and an imagination.
Ustad Hamza Tzortzis Did A Seminar On "How To Give Dawah To Atheist & Agnostic" . One Of The Best Series, On How To Give Dawah To Atheist. I Highly Recommend It. This Series will give you correct Framework , The Right stepping stones in order for you to walk on, In order to reach a certain Destination, It will give you right Foundations and the conceptual tools in order for you to understand how to articulate a compassionate and Intelligent case for Islam to our brothers and sisters in Humanity. Link Of The Playlist: czcams.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg2TvzrH5vEdqgboebkksKLq.html
Do Check Out These Playlist..I Highly Recommend
Arguments For The Existence Of God:
czcams.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg3taF93a9ThvdYOSvqSGzvp.html
Islam And Liberalism:
czcams.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg0aguMql_QAe-BZ6RnNJu52.html
Islam And Feminism:
czcams.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg1Vv22K2hmwOCAWGUYGvmvb.html
Islam And Science:
czcams.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg2cs-pBAnRA_wrTF7fgzSN6.html
Islam And Evolution:
czcams.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg1n9XpyooRdOiTR2z8iLG9j.html
Dealing With Doubts:
czcams.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg19DfEtNiWOyzfhvnzgvw7c.html
May Allah reward you.
Djazak allahu khayran Brother! It's like you've read my mind ... I've been looking for a video where you explain the contingency theory.
This is the best explanation of contingency argument bcoz its taking determinism into consideration.
Please explain the origin nd history of liberalism, modern democracy nd political philosophy???
thanks
I don't think it's the best, it is good but by far the best argument I've heard was Asadullah's Fitra Argument. Still a good video and may Allah reward you Ameen.
Asadullah Ali Al Andalusi? Where can i find it please?
link please?
@@marufez_4457 @Sarah Novella
Look on CZcams Andalusian project
Someone said I don’t trust your innate nature that’s why the argument is false how should I respond to that
LINK: czcams.com/video/9J0lOQT2HBo/video.html
Where are these arguments of ghazali found??? Kimiaye saadat????
We want more academic discussion abt history, science, political philosophy nd what is classical islamic view on this??
@Abdullah Mikail
1) czcams.com/video/KofTB3eyoCE/video.html
2) czcams.com/video/pqEE8UgY4uc/video.html
Hi. I would like to know why or how the PSR (principle sufficient Reason ) is true. Why do ALL contingent existence need and explanation. This is the only part of the argument I Don't understand.
From nothing comes nothing so if something comes from nothing it automatically needs an explanation.
And if something comes from nothing then it has a beginning which makes it contingent.
And if you say that something can come from nothing then maybe you are using the definition of nothingness of richard dawkins but that isn't the real nothingness.
Also if you really believe something can come from nothing then you would have to allow all sorts of absurdities and you would still need to explain why this thing came into existence now and not earlier or after.
If you say that the world is pre eternal then you run into the problem of infinite regress
Read Alexander puss's book on the PSR
So this argument could be used against the Trinity? Or is the trinity not made up of detachable parts
Christians don't believe the 3 persons of the Trinity are parts.
Yes it can be. The question remains why does the godhead has only three persons ? Couldve been persons of different numbers. Therfore needs an external explanation.
How do you prove that God must continue to exist in order for the universe to exist? All I can comprehend from the contingency argument is that God's existence was necessary to create the universe in the first place.
3:00
Can there be more than one necessary existence? Why or why not?
Yes. Of course. There is no contradiction.
No because they would depend on each other
@@donaldmcronald8989 no they would depend on each other
@@donaldmcronald8989 let’s say x is independent things, you have 2x, how do you get to two x? X+X Which means they depend on each other
Let’s say x is independent things, you have 2x, how do you get to two x? X+X Which means they depend on each other
MashaAllah. Nice explanation brother Hijab.
But brother Hijab, why can we just not consider the fundamental constants of the universe to be that necessary existance?
Although, I agree, at the moment our 2 fundamental theories of the universe, general relativity and QFT are incomplete and just approximations. We have around 19 fundamental constants using which we describe the universe (As Muslims we believe they are fine tuned) but we know some of them or all of them could have come into existance immediately after big bang and had otherwise not existed before. But we as humanity are working towards a theory of everything. And this theory may consist of an equation with as little as just 1 fundamental constant. The SuperString theory is one such example. Why can we not postulate that fundamental constant to be the necessary existance? Why necessary existance has to be a God? If the necessary existance is not conscious then if might as well be just some universal constant or some fundamental behaviour of Nothingness that gives rise to universes. Ours just happens to be one. And so far, with our repeated observations, this seems to be much simpler an explanation and much less speculative than the existance of God, or the existance of some sort of Simulation made by some highly intelligent alien species or the matrix or whatever else lots of Athiests seem to believe.
I know this is an old video. But I just found this video and I really need to know the answer to this question before I am myself confident enough in using contingency as an argument for God?
“fundamental behaviour of nothingness”
I think you mean, fundamental behaviour of the fabric of reality. Nothingness is not a thing that can do things.
@@aaaaaaaaaaaa9023
Brother the problem is that the true philosophical nothingness is extremely unstable and does not exist and when we try to achieve it, we realise it takes a lot of energy to create it and the moment we get close to its creation, it disintegrates in quark anti-quark pairs.
Thats what I meant by the fundamental behaviour of nothingness.
@@uatiger1 did you get an answer to your issue?
The physical constants can be in an other ways, making it a possible existence.
Read modern cosmology.
8:30
I am not an Islamophobe in that I never thought that all Muslims were terrorists and did not agree with America's constant wars in the middle east, but I did think that virtually all Muslims were antisemitic and I was deeply impressed with these two being so welcoming to the Jewish caller. It taught me to view Islam in a new way.
We are not against Jews.
Some are because of political events
We are against the current state of israel/zionists, not jews. Jews are amazing people
How can we against jews when our prophet marry jew
I AM. NOT AN. ATHEIST. I AM AGNOSTIC.
THE CONTINGENCY ARGUMENT IS NOT
THE TYPE. OF. ARGUMENT THAT KEEPS ME
AWAKE AT. NIGHT. WONDERING IF I SHOULD
GO BACK TO THEISM.
06:35 MH didnt even tell 3 things only 2 ^^. Thats why no one found the third haha
he did, watch again
RECOMENDED no he didn’t so far I mean. After that he did.
Actually he did i am 100% sure if that
9:35 Possible existence
Let initial existence = E(i)
If a new element j from nothing is added to E(i) it becomes E(i + j).
Now E(i) is not the same to E(i+j).
It is a false assumption to conclude that j has no effect on E(i) because E(i+j) is a new existence.
The only Saboor in the scene is different from the scene where there are S and MH especially if MH came from non-existence.
Sir, He said if possible existence gets removed it's non existence does not effect our existence.
i.e in your example if it becomes E(i+j) then j will not effect the *existence* of E(i).
But yeah surely there will be effect but the effect will not be such that it disrupts existence of eachother.
Also, Sir He did not talk about cause and effect because some people like Determinist may not agree with it.
What he use is dependency, Reliance, Contingency of possible existence over the Necessary existence.
It’s possible for a necessary existence, to which all possible existences originate, once existed but now doesn’t.
For example, I could not exist without my parents. But once I start to exist my continued existence is not dependant on them. Take my parents away and I can still exist.
Something necessary and non contingent created the universe (ok), but it does not necessarily exist now.
Also the universe could have been created by a contingent entity, which was created by a non contingent entity. Or in fact a chain of any number of contingent entities with an originating non contingent entity. That non contingent entity might have nothing to do with the universe, and the contingent creator of the universe no longer exists.
As an example, I can create a computer program, but that’s doesn’t mean I’m non contingent. I’m contingent on my parents who may know nothing about the program. My ceasing to exist does not destroy the program. It can still exist without me even though I created it.
Necessity is both spacial AND temporal. It can be necessary at one point in time, but not another.
Looking forward to the next videos where it is shown to exist now, shown to be a being and not a thing, shown to be a God, then shown to be a specific God.
Then I’ll follow that God.
Look up Muhammad Hijabs video of today where he discusses atheists he explains exactly all your questions.
You don't understand the argument
You don't understand contingent means, contingency is not cause and effect.
@@MrHabib135 you totally missed the point it's dependency/contingency not causality
He concedes that an infinite chain can be the necessary existence? I havent watched the full video but can he even deduce the necessary existence is a conscious being? If not then it is no god at all and his argument does not take someone out of atheism.
An existence that is unconscious cannot be necessary.
How?
Since it is unconscious, it has no will. If it has no will, it must be functioning on laws that it did not create/impose. Hence, it is dependent on those laws to exist and function.
The argument from contingency is a particularisation argument, meaning that the necessary existence must have given all the possible existences their limitations, meaning the necessary existence has a will and hence is conscious. Hence, it is the one and only God.
@@Fatima_33
Why can those laws not be an attribute of the necessary foundation? The same way will is an attribute of god? These laws from the necessary foundation then gave rise to our contingent universe?
@@sorthist9007 Those same laws could be implemented by the necessary being could it not?
@@sorthist9007 No, then it requires further explanation on its finitude/limitation and its contingency. How can a foundation that's unconscious/unintelligent without a will or potential even give rise to rationality and and humans with wisdom/intellect/knowledge/free will/subjective consciousness/intuition etc lmao like yall atheists always want to find another option that's infinitely absurd rather than accepting and submitting your will to God. Like who even placed your soul/identity in your specific body? Cmon its not rocket science its common sense and intuition/inference to the best and obvious explanation. Just clean your "diseased" heart and seek the truth with sincerity instead of having a bias and trying to deny it at every instance. If ur not willing to accept then u will never and u will suffer the consequences of that in the hereafter, u will have literally no one to blame but urself.
There is a hadith where Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم has said that we have to beg Allah for help and he said also that we do not beg for the help to someone which is deaf and blind. In short, Allah has the qualities of perfection, i.e. Allah has the highest qualities that necessarily belong to his essence. Allah has no attributes of weakness or he would be dependent. Allah is the independent one and eternal. If one does not have a healthy Fitrah to understand it then he must work on it. I would recommend you to watch the video. czcams.com/video/KofTB3eyoCE/video.html
Lol. Not even 7 minutes in and confusion is painfully clear. Bru, leave that Kalam and come to the dawa of the ambiyyaa
Say that when your own children will become atheists and you will have to return to us kalamis or whatever you wanna call us
Ambiya had miracles, do you have too?
Going from atheist to deist does nothing. Both of them are radically different than theism. The hard work is moving a deist to one particular theistic belief. Even if you have an atheist accept this argument, you have a looooong way to go from there, logically or empirically. That’s the hard bridge to cross, and one that no theist has been successful with.
If the whole world were deists we’d be in a much much better place
Do you have a revelation from GOD (NAUZUBILLAH) or direct inspiration thorough which you came to this conclusions?
And btw diesm agrees that there is GOD while atgiesm denies .
Dude your whole argument or comment is full of assumptions.
@@MuhammadHassan200 I didn’t really make an argument. Just commented on that lack of utility that a deistic claim has. As far as impact on our lives, a deistic god is indistinguishable from a real god.
That’s one assertion, can you show me how a deistic god impacts our lives, or how we can get to a theistic god without adding presuppositions?
And no, revelation is a private matter and has no place in public discourse. I’m not denying your experience, but to anyone outside of you, it’s impossible to discern between a revelation and an imagination.
@@jonde-cent4897 when did I point out my experience?
if p entails q, doesn't this give an argument for Jesus Christ?
🫡🫡your logic