Timestamps 0:37 Contingency Argument 2:40 Definition of dependency 3:14 Difference between dependency and causation 4:45 Dependency of Human/Universe 6:35 What is independent? 7:48 Qualities of Independent Being 8:30 Fallacy of Composition(1st Objection) 11:53 Definition of Parts 15:30 2nd Objection (Discussion about infinite Regress/multiverse/Infinity/Avicenna/Ibn e Taymiyyah/Al Ghazali's views about the issue) 27:7 3rd Objection (By Bertrand Russell) 32:22 4rth Objection (Retro- causality) 35:19 Grandfather paradox 41:44 5th Objection (Something from Nothing) 42:54 😊MH smiles. Regards ~Halal Finisher Do pray for Sapience Institute Dawah Team and for me as well so that Allah ❤️ accepts me in the field of Knowledge & Dawah Lillah ☝️ In Shaa Allah ❤️
“Nature is a divine art; it cannot be the artist. It is a dominical book and cannot be the scribe. It is an embroidery and cannot be the embroiderer. It is a register and cannot be the accountant. It is the law and cannot be the power” - Said Nursi
@@sanwar2410 this quote was taken from an Ottoman book called Risale-i Nur Külliyatı by a kurdish scholar known as Said Nursi. The book has been translated into English. You'll find this quote in the volume entitled "the words".
@@sanwar2410 It's by Said Nursi, he is regarded as one of the most influential scholars in Turkey that ever lived. He has a collection of books where he combines the classic arguments of Gazali and many more - such as Hume - and creates this amazing tafsir of the Quran. He revived Islam during the most secular times of Turkey.
@@HistoryOfRevolutions Why do you say Ottoman? If I quoted something written in the Victorian Era und queen Victoria, would you say it is a "Victorian" book? Say a Turkish book, Old Literary Turkish, or atleast Ottoman Turkish. I personally call it undestroyed and naturally beautified Turkish.
The creator just is The objection fails to make any crucial distinction between the creator and other objects, and so it fails in its attempt to prevent at the outset a rational inquiry into the issue of whether the creator has some origin outside itself.
Watching it rn. I’m glad you are open to discussing what people might thought about this argument. I’m hoping ti learn from this episode like the others and hope to see this “logical” argument not turning out to a bidah. Bidahs are bad bros, I hope we avoid them.
@@jermsbestfriend9296if you don't understand something that doesn't negate the fact that it is true or untrue. Because if inability to understand something is used as an argument against something's validity then you basically would have to deny everything. There are people in the world who don't understand anything. There are people who don't understand maths but that does not mean maths is wrong
@@Ahle.haq0 Not sure how your point is meant to connect. I understand: the point being made is that stupidity should reign supreme--that's a summary of the point being made, and to the extent that it could be considered true, we would consider efficacy. Stupidity is not effective so it is not true that stupidity should reign supreme.
@@Ahle.haq0 these arguments and this series like others like it are intended for more academic or pseudo/wannabe-academics as well as people whose minds work this way when personally contemplating. This level of detail is not needed for the general laymen. However, these arguments exist because the arguments presented make sense and resonate with that intended audience.
Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of Hijab’s arguments here Saying the universe is contingent is not committing a fallacy of composition, because the universe is not dependent just because it is composed of dependent parts, but because it has parts in the first place, and anything that has parts cannot be necessary. if they do say the universe is eternal and independent, one should show they are no longer an atheist, but then point out the universe cannot be independent, regardless of whether it is a infinite multiverse or infinite universe, because it can be added to, subtracted from, and conceived of in another way. A necessary fact is 2+2=4 and there is no other conceivable possibility. The universe is not like this. The planets can rotate in a different direction. This wasn’t mentioned but some atheists say the universe is an eternal singularity crunching and banging. The singularity is obviously dependent if it is changing. And you can still ask, what does the singularity depend on in order to go from one state to another. If it is eternally in one state, it requires agency or an external agent in order to change. The universe from nothing argument and the brute fact one are just laughable. And the retro-causation one allows the grandfather paradox, where a person goes in the past to kill his grandfather but then how does he exist. Hijab says that with causation it is possible that B occurs without A happening, however with contingency/dependency, B is contingent on A so B cannot exist without A, and if it can exist without something it is contingent upon, then it is independent and the atheist is no longer an atheist. I may not have understood this part correctly.
To merciful hearts I am a mother of orphaned children from Palestine and the Gaza Strip. I appeal to the good people and doers of good. I appeal to the servants of the Most Merciful. Life is difficult and we have no breadwinner. The conditions are harsh in Gaza. We live without shelter in a very bad Zingo room. and winter Forgive me for entering this way, the circumstances are stronger than me, the number in front of you in the picture
Salaama, I think in the new Census of the UK you will find most people 50% will be marked as Atheists. Youth as much as 70% +. A substantial amount of people are delving into "Spiritualism" DMT/Ayeausca etc.. this is rooted in platonic Monism philosophy as well as Hinduism. More research of this relative to the Abrahamic faiths i think needs to be done. The youth you will find are heading the spiritual arena. Christianity and Contingency argument etc. i personally feel is a minority thought among the masses. This is just my opinion.
About fallacy of composition, can't we say there are types of qualities of a composition, like quantitative qualities and physical qualities. Where quantitative qualities are things we can put a number on like: size, weight, temperature and so on. While physical qualities are otherwise like; colour, texture etc. In this case we find that quantitative qualities may not match in terms of the parts and whole while physical qualities just might. And see if causeability is a physical quality.
Yes my bro. Hamza tzortzis writes in his book the divine reality that limited parts make limited wholes. A house made of limited parts is limited for example and there is no fallacy of composition.
19:15 allow me to make a correction: belief in a multiverse is not a substitution for a god. Belief in a multiverse is is not a point which anyone holds with the degree of conviction which a theist holds the belief in his god. Belief in the multiverse is more of an informed guess for which we may never find any proof...but it serves to point out the vast number of possibilities of which we may not be aware. But is all boils down to the fact that we really have no idea what the universe is.
@@midoevil7 you have to differentiate between agnostic atheist like myself and Bart Ehrmann and pure atheists. As an agnostic atheist, I am open to the possibility of a necessary being but I don't know what shape, form or attributes this being has. I can't disprove nor prove its existence and attributes either way. A pure atheist considers that the necessary existence might be the energy from which the big bang arose.this energy might be eternal.
@@markorbit4752 I see, but this argument of initial-energy being the necessary existence doesn't hold as well, it doesn't explain the order of the universe, and I think it is basically the universe is what it is argument. Regarding agnostic atheism, I agree with you that this is where logic alone can lead to. I think the next question is: Many scriptures claimed it is the creator's message to humanity, but which one is actually true?
Dependency is not equal to relevance. The universe / multiverse may be dependent on a necessary existence, but that does not mean that the necessary existence is of any relevance to us humans.
@@RealVerses don't be stupid. I never said dependency IS NOT RELATED to relevance. I said it is not equal. My peace life depends on the peace treaties that exists between world powers like USA and China and Russia. But those treaties are not relevant to my daily life because they are too far removed from me to have any relevance. If we our universe was created in a lab by being so big we can't even imagine, and those being were created by even bigger beings who were created by the necessary existence , then the necessary existence would not be relevant to us, even if our existence depends on it.
@@markorbit4752 A simple dictionary definition of 'the word selfish' sums up your previous comment. A Quranic Ayat comes to mind that is repeated more than once: "So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?"
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 fact it can be conceived otherway does not necessitate that it's contingent from the perspective of the fallacy of composition. If the parts are contingent the universe is not if it always maintains that energy released after the rearrangement of the forms within it If we say the universe is made up of energy that gets rearranged in different forms constantly . Those parts are contingent but the universe is not because it keeps the same amount of energy within it. It never gets more or less. Therefore the universe is necessary in the abstract form . Therefore the universe is independent . ???
Why not (about the Universe) : we do not know. And that would - today - be the right answer. Maybe science will give us an answer one day in the future. Not religion. Not philosophy.
Science is based on philosophy. Therefore, if science is a valid way of coming to truth, then so is philosophy. Also, because philosophy is what defines the boundaries of science, if there is no philosophical answer, there is no scientific answer. You would not say “we do not know” about anything else but you say it when it comes to this. Why don’t you just say “we do not know” about science as well then? The fact that you’re so ready to throw away philosophy once it doesn’t fit your paradigm is incredibly disingenuous. It’s almost as if you worship science instead of God.
Wait so one thing which has confused me for a long time is the whole concept of "anything which is made up of parts is dependent". What I mean by this is: what about fundamental particles? And also, doesn't the universe sustain itself? Like I don't see Allah coming in and making the universe work or anything. How is the universe dependent? They keep saying it's made of parts, but I'm failing to see how that makes it dependent. If they say it's because it can be arranged in another way, then they're saying it's dependent, but that's kind of like using causation. Like something caused it to be like that. But dependency is something needs to exist in order for that dependent thing to exist. How does Allah's existence, and/or lack thereof, impact the universe? Just something I'm confused on.
I only got an answer for the first one. I'm young and don't understand much but from my basic understanding is that Things that are made from a variety of parts are depending on the parts existing for itself to exist. For example a triangle must have 3 straight lines. If straight lines didn't exist. A triangle would not exist. Similarly, if you somehow remove certain particles from the universe then it's conditions will be completely different e.g hydrogen. effects black holes, stars, life, gravity. BTW we can make a video game and not be present while it is still running. Walt disney is dead but mickey mouse still exists. Just because you can't see a creator doesn't mean he doesn't exist
@@bargink5287 thanks. The main issue for me is fundamental particles. If they exist, they aren't made of parts. So are they considered necessary existences?
@@zaidsyed8501 I think we might be overthinking here. If we are agreed that the universe is dependent via its made up parts, but then say the fundamental particles in this universe is of necessary existence based on the argument of parts...I believe the next logical question should be whether necessary existence is possible for stuff like fundamental particles (i.e is it possible to prove that it exists on its own or was it created into existence?). I’d argue it’s not conceivable to argue that anything in this universe can be proven to have necessary existence whether it’s made up of parts or not since one may always question how it exists and why is it the way it is and if it is a form of necessary existence then is it existing infinitely? Idk if that helps or makes any sense
@@symbiotezilla12345 So what you're saying is once we get to the level of fundamental particles, we go into a kind of Kalam argument, asking where it all came from, there had to be a beginning etc.? I guess that kind of makes sense... Another thing would be that the necessary existence is something which is unlimited, meaning it requires no explanation. Fundamental particles are limited per se, because they are within the bounds of this reality I guess. Thank you for your take, I have a lot to think about!
@@zaidsyed8501 I guess you could say that. I think the point of this lecture was merely to show how the universe as a WHOLE is contingent and prove that contingency by using the composition argument - which as Br Hijab explained is a great counter to the questions posed by athiests against the contingency argument. Whereas if we get to the nitty gritty such as fundamental particles or energy and etc then I am unsure if the intent of the lecture really applies to these phenomenon - since as I said the lecture seeks to strengthen the contingency argument overall. So if the universe as a whole is contingent then it is dependent if I understood correctly. I do believe you are kinda forced to go kalam on stuff like fundamental particles but perhaps contingency still applies because those fundamental particles could be rearranged to form anything rather than what they form specifically in our universe - thus implying dependency? Idk but all I know is to the very least you are forced to ask where those particles came from unless we supposed that they existed infinitely- which to me personally would make no sense.
What if, when the interlocutor answers the question of what's the best explanation for the universe to be stable, uniform and predictable enough to be life permitting, by saying "we dont know" and then use the God of the gaps argument against the proposition that Allah is the best explanation?
The things I really don’t understand is that you can remove or add parts and therefore it’s dependent. Can you guys give me example of this? What is it that can be removed/added? I don’t get it man.
30:00 Yeah. People literally give this infantile line of argument a name. The "Brute Fact Argument". Funny thing is the same atheists would never allow any religious person saying God exists 'just because'. Speaks to the double standard Russell and his followers live by.
29:30 We do not say God just is. We say God just is necessary. We would never except an explanation this childish. For example.... "Why am I happy? I just am." "Why didn't a stranger cook my breakfast? He just didn't." "What color is the sky? It's just blue."
If you can take the part out of it, it's dependent Like , can you take the sun out of this universe? How? If a wood turn into a chair, means it's can be any other way!! Dependent! Like,,,
In someway, independent things has common things with dependent, and the independent thing can be dependent on other factor, but when the independent thing has no common things with the dependents and the independent cannot be dependent in any form, then this would be the absolute independent. Example for the absolute independent not exist in the nature. here the God existence is logical, as mentioned in the Quran, nothing equivalent to Allah, also the eternal (Al-Samad).
then you would have to deal with infinite regress of events the process will never start ie universe would not come to existence : Was the universe created by something else created? Will that satisfy the questioner? Obviously not. The contentious person will undoubtedly ask, “Then, what created that thing?” If we were to answer, “Another created thing”, what do you think he would say? Yes, you guessed right: “What created that thing?” If this ridiculous dialogue continued forever, then it would prove one thing: the need for an uncreated creator. Why? Because we cannot have the case of a created thing, like the universe, being created by another created thing in an unlimited series going back forever (known as an infinite regress of causes). It simply does not make sense. Consider the following examples: • Imagine that a sniper, who has acquired his designated target, radios through to HQ to get permission to shoot. HQ, however, tells the sniper to hold on while they seek permission from someone higher-up. Subsequently, the person higher-up seeks permission from the guy even higher up, and so on and so on. If this keeps going on forever, will the sniper ever get to shoot the target? Of course not! He will keep on waiting while someone else is waiting for a person higher up to give the order. There has to be a place or person from where the command is issued; a place where there is no one higher. Thus, our example illustrates the rational flaw in the idea of an infinite regress of causes. When we apply this to the universe we have to posit that it must have had an uncreated creator. The universe, which is a created thing, could not be created by another created thing, ad infinitum. If that were the case this universe would not exist. Since it exists, we can dismiss the idea of an infinite regress of causes as an irrational proposition. • Imagine if a stock trader at the stock exchange was not able to buy or sell his stocks or bonds before asking permission from the investor. Once the stock trader asked his investor, he also had to check with his investor. Imagine if this went on forever. Would the stock trader ever buy or sell his stocks or bonds? The answer is no. There must be an investor who gives the permission without requiring anypermission himself. In similar light, if we apply this to the universe, we would have to posit a creator for the universe that is uncreated.Once the above examples are applied to the universe directly, it will highlight the absurdity of the idea that the universe ultimately was created by something created. Consider if this universe, U1, was created by a prior cause, U2, and U2 was created by another cause, U3, and this went on forever. We wouldn’t have universe U1 in the first place. Think about it this way, when does U1 come into being? Only after U2 has come into being. When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being. This same problem will continue even if we go on forever. If the ability of U1 to come into being was dependent on a forever chain of created universes, U1 would never exist.146 As Islamic philosopher and scholar Dr. Jaafar Idris writes: “There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of nonexistents… The fact, however, is that there are existents around us; therefore, their ultimate cause must be something other than temporal causes.
Imagine a casual series of A,B and C where A is pure cause which is not effect of other and C is pure effect which is not cause of another .B is the intermediate member which has both the attributes of cause and effect because it is the cause of C and the effect of A . A ceases to exist the B and C necessarily ceases to exist therefore A is more worthy of existence then B and C . Now it doesn't matter if the intermediates are one or many finite or infinite they will still have the same characterstics of intermediates like B such that it can't exist without a pure cause like A . Suppose two infinite series iof A and B such that series A is ten member shorter then series B now if their is a member in series A for each member of series B then A should be greater then series by a finite amount and that which greater than other by finite amount can't it self be infinite . hope this helps
@borsalinokizaru9862 the fundamental principle of this argument, is that, all that is within the range or our perception could have been different, therefor there must be something that made it to be the way it is. That something in itself could not been conceived to be different than it is. I would say that the only thing which is within our empirical range that can not be conceived differently is consciousness, for the mere act of trying to conceived the possibility of it differently than it is, happens within it self. Consciousness is the necessary principle upon which all other things exists. This universal consciousness will point to God.
Human constructs - philosophical arguments and/or scientific naturalism/secular science and/or human opinions can't ascertain of anything or prove anything of the truth....they can be awakening reality or dreaming reality!
Just because something sounds logical and rational, doesn't mean it's true. When dealing with things unknown, it might be that which we consider illogical that ends up being true
Your argument also applies to the natural including your senses. Your argument is essentially we cannot know anything. Sure but then what? You know that premise is bs. No one operates irl thinking that they can't know anything.
This is a contradiction, its like saying, that a squared circle can be true.mor just because im not telling the truth, doesnt mean im lying, this is what atheism does, lol when it comes to LOGICAL SELF EVIDENT DEDUCTIVE ARGUEMENTS YOUR SCEPTICISM SKY ROCKETS, BUT to irrational and illogical things the knob of skepticism goes down😂 like buddy, with all due respect. Reflect upon what your saying.
The thought of Ibn Taymiyyah of comparing a perpetual sustainance of Hell and Paradise in the future to ascertain perpetual creation processes in the past seem flawed because the set of creation processes then naturally exists eternaly, pre and post, which is an attribute of Allah, that only He is eternal. Post-eternality or immortality in the case of human souls is not a problem because it only applies within the Mercy of Allah and He sustains us. Pre-eternality, even if it only applies to a set seems dangerously close to the christian idea of an infinitely generated son of God. It's just my two cents and brother Hijab didn't agree with this view of ibn Taymiyyah anyway but I'm open to discussion.
Asalaamualaykum brother There is a difference between infinite and eternal. Infinite either has no start and no end, or has a start and no end, but in both cases it depends on time and space to exist. Eternal on the other hand, is beyond time and space, very different from infinite. Allah is eternal ie, He is beyond time and space.
It would be nice if Mohamed hijab, could explain how the ontological based of this argument could not be used against God. We could conceive God to be on some other way
some brothers that are listening in the class need to speak with some heart instead of stuttering and speaking half heartedly. speak clearly and with some confidence 😐
Yes, the triangularity of a triangle, is a necessary existence and is independent of everything. Also the laws of physics are independent existences that are discover and not created
@@yassershariflaws are PRESCRIPTIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE, not creative, and a NECASSARY EXISTENCE is DIFFERENT from a necassary FACT facts are also prescriptive and descriptive, existence is more FOUNDATIONAL,
@@ayeshayasir8665 okay describe means we use words to represent what we observe. Prescribe means, we don't have words to describe what we observe so we grant or give a description. An example of a prescription would be sweetness. So if you ask anyone "I never tasted sweetness but I want to understand sweetness, give me those descriptions of sweetness, after hearing them I will have the complete understanding of sweetness." but sweetness cannot be put into words, the only answer to this question is " eat some honey and that taste is sweetness" this the word sweetness was prescribed onto the experience is sweet taste. But in the case of a triangle, we have the notion of forms or shapes or polygons, we know what are angles whether described or prescribed, it doesn't matter, the triangle exists outside of the human mind and its triangularity is necessary, if not then it wouldn't be a triangle. A² + B² = C². This is true even if no triangles were ever discovered. Also necessary existence and a necessary fact are the same thing. Since non existence is not a thing, a necessary fact exists by necessity. Thus a necessary fact is also a necessary existence. They are 2 perspectives of the same thing. If I said "I am a necessary being" if it's true then the fact of me being a necessary being is necessarily true. But it cannot be the case that something exists necessarily but not be a necessary fact. I hope I was able to convey this in a way you're able to understand Thanks
@@ayeshayasir8665 Hummm.. Existence is more fundamental. As we know Things either exist necessarily or potentially at impossibly. So those existing things that come into existence and leave existence are called potential existence. But existence itself is not like that. Because existence cannot come into existence. Because then its cause would have to exist. Thus the cause for existence would be existence itself which is a contradiction and it wouldn't answer our question as to what is the cause of existence
At 12:20 Muhammad Hijab makes a completely arbitrary and ad hoc delimitation on the definition of parts that he read out wrspt Allah because he admits it means his understanding of real distinct entitive attributes result in Allah swt having parts. His position means that Allah swt is a conglomerate being made up of parts but this is something no Muslim will countenance and so Hijab just chooses to change the definition of 'part' This isn't honest and it certainly isn't tawheed.
The existence of consciousness is sufficient to deny induction logic of the philosophical contingency/dependency argument/proof for existence of God. Everyone has one own independent conscious mind!
A person's mind/consciousness is dependent upon the person existing, if the person dies so does the person's mind, therefore our mind cannot be independent. Our mind is also susceptible to change caused by other factors e.g. dementia, alzheimer, alcohol/drugs, so therefore it is dependent.
14:56 Ustadh , but we don't say "Everything which begins to exist has a Cause" because Some events in the Universe we observe have causes. Rather our Reasons are different , for example Something coming into existence from Ex Nihilo and By Ex Nihilo is impossible therefore "Everything which begins to exist must a Foundation which provides Potential for it to happen" such Foundation can be called Cause , as far as i understand. and it's not subject to the objection of Composition fallacy , it's more fundamental than Observations and Universe , it's metaphysical
@@agadirand4four347 bro , we don't use Observation to prove Causal Principle , it's more fundamental than that , And it's metaphysically impossible that Something comes into existence from nothing and by nothing , or From Ex Nihilo and By Ex Nihilo , Therefore everything which comes into existence require "Cause" in order to come into existence. We don't need to discuss if this is true in the Universe or not , it's necessarily true independent of the Universe , because Non existence do not have potential by definition hence can't produce anything , (God creating Universe without material is different issue , because God is present as a Cause)
Atheists don't say "the universe just is"...today. we now know of the big bang, and we concede that we don't know what the universe was BEFORE the big bang. But no one says the universe just is.... On the contrary, theists say "Allah just is".
An infinite regress of contingent things is an impossibility. If you have an infinite past, you never have a present(we would NOT be having this conversation right now if the Universe never came into existence). A creator of all things is necessary and therefore uncaused.
الي القلوب الرحيمة انا ام لأطفال ايتام من فلسطين قطاع غزة أناشد الطيبون وفاعلين الخير اناشد عباد الرحمن الحياة صعبة ولامعيل لناوالظروف قاسية بغزة ونعيش بلا مأوى بغرفة زينقو سيئة للغاية والله عدم واتمنى من الله فاعل خير يساعد اطفالي ويعمل الخير لوجه الله تعالي يستطيع مساعدتنا بمصاريف البيت وتشطيب الغرفة من المطر والشتاء سامحوني لدخولي بهالطريقة الظروف أقوى مني الرقم امامكم بالصورة.
@@a_t_l7031 does not matter I have demonstrated to u that his parts or attributes are contingent thus he is contingent The very fact u used the word choice means there existed other possibilities of him existing in other ways 👁👄👁bravo U follow a contingent god
@@arianagrandaremix8858 let's say it's possible that he could exist with any other attributes but it's still necessary that he's what he's now because he chose to be that way,the reason for this is that we believe that Allah's knowledge is above everything and since he's the necessary being it means that even if there was another way for his attributes to exist it's still necessary that he exist in this way because it's the correct one,so you just misunderstood the argument+ his attributes have nothing to do with his necessary existence because this is not arguing the Islamic believe of the creator , but the existence of a one.
@@a_t_l7031 👁👄👁mate contingent things are defined as things which can be imagined to be otherwise or can be otherwise Your god fits that definition so by definition he's contingent not necessary I'm just doing what Mohamed hijab did by the same method he concluded the universe as contingent 💁♀️ if his attributes can be any other way that means he is NOT NECESSARY by definition Your right tho he's not directly arguing for his god bez the premisses don't conclude that However, he is concluding that so it's safe to say he's arguing for god 😶 Ps: I think ur conflating being eternal with necessary existence Those are not the same concepts
@@arianagrandaremix8858 i understand what you're saying and i agree that the attributes themselves are contingent if we separated them, but what i believe is that those attributes are necessary by their relation to god himself, because if you said that those attributes could've existed in any other way it's the same when you say that "1+1 " could be other than 2, which is not totally wrong but the percentage of it being true is so low ( using mathematics we're able to prove something like this) however it doesn't change the fact that the only right answer is 2, so what i mean is that if god chose those attributes then they're the only right attributes for him because he himself is the necessary being which means that he's all powerful and all knowledgeable so your argument itself is wrong since it's depicting the attributes as the god which is not true at all. +BtW until this moment i was agreeing with you and arguing from what you believe in , but what do you mean by "his attributes could've been any other way"?? you don't know any of the other ways so you have no bases for your counter argument 🤦🏻♂️
Ok here is a very easy objection. Is Allah perfect? Yes, so can ALLAH CHANGE? Yes, they believe Allah speaks with letters and sounds and arabic. They believe Allah descends. They believe Allah lives etc. So how van Allah be perfect because he has changed. From the mosy perfect, so the change has made Allah more perfect. Therefore he wasn't perfect before. So ask can Allah change?
descends? what's that supposed to mean+you're talking about the way Allah chose to speak with us, that's not a real argument because we don't believe that Allah speaks in the same way we do
AS AN AGNOSTIC, THE CONTINGENCY ARGUMENT IS NOT THE TYPE OF ARGUMENT THAT OF ARGUMENT THAT KEEPS ME AWAKE AT NIGHT WONDERING IF I SHOULD GO BACK TO THEISM.
I'm also agnostic and the argument from contingency is definitely the type of argument that keeps me awake at night; as evidenced by the fact that I'm awake right now! However it's worth exploring why you might think this. Firstly, whenever MH tries articulating this argument it turns out to be the least compelling (or most boring) argument you've ever heard. It's almost as if he doesn't understand what he's talking about, despite having a PhD in this. I'll have to read his book on this later. I would recommend Joshua Rasmussen instead. Hell, even Hamza Tzortzis does a better job explaining this than him. Secondly, the most contentious aspect about this argument is the "gap problem." It does not follow that the Necessary Being or foundation of reality is God. It's notoriously difficult to prove that it is. This is what philosophers attempt to prove in stage 2 of the contingency argument. Sadly MH hardly brings this up, almost as if he's totally ignorant of it. Consistent atheists that don't suddenly become radical skeptics when this argument is presented usually concede to all of the premises in stage 1 and agree there's an NB or foundation of reality. That's what Graham Oppy does for example. Their Necessary being is naturalistic.
@----f Thank you for your reply. I hasten to add that I have no training in Philosophy. But I go by the maxim, if something doesn't make sense and there is no evidence to support it, then it probably isn't true. In closing I would like to quote Peter VavbInwagen. He has been professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame University . This is what he has said and I quote "" I have to admit as a philosopher, you'd be crazy to believe anything of ultimate significance on the basis of a philosophical argument"" End of quote. Ironically to the best of my knowledge Professor Inwagen is a Christian. I admire Professor Inwagen's intellectual honesty. All the best.
EDIT: I can now disprove Allah with certainty. See the video: The Ultimate Proof That God Is Not Real! My own version will be out soon. I say this as an atheist: There can be a "non-necessary" thing. Something which is eternal and changes or becomes disassembled. Think of a triangle that changes into a V. What it's *made of* could still be eternal even though it is no longer a triangle. So what is God made of? He isn't made of anything? Then you are defining God as an absolute nothing. If you say God is made of something then could this God or eternal thing be both eternal and change? Become disassembled? Of course it could because what it's made of is eternal. Talking necessary and contingent only is a false dichotomy. We're now at a 50/50 as to whether the eternal thing is necessary or non-necessary. I can get you to probably not necessary but that is for a different discussion: First we have to agree on the above.
If I understood correctly, you are saying that there can be a non necessary thing that is eternal because of the parts it is made of. The triangle is dependent on the straight lines to exist. God is not a physical thing so it is not made up of parts.
An infinite regress of contingent things is an impossibility. If you have an infinite past, you never have a present(we would NOT be having this conversation right now if the Universe never came into existence). A creator of all things is necessary and therefore uncaused.
@@ApologeticsAddict Yes the eternal thing that created everything else is eternal, uncaused. But it would still be made of something. We're talking about whether it's necessary -- eternal and doesn't change -- for certain. It is not for certain / not certainly necessary as I have explained.
@@BoItzmannBrain Yes exactly so you're saying God isn't made of anything or God is made of nothing: No parts, nothing. You're just defining God as an absolute nothing without realizing it is my argument. The straight lines could be eternal is what I'm saying in our metaphor. It could change into a V shape so the triangle isn't eternal or neither is the V but the lines it's *made of* are. And remember what does non-physical mean? Again made of nothing.
@@reincarnationentertainment9885 I agree with everything you said except for the "what does non-physical mean? Again made out of nothing" there are non-physical things like consciousness. Made of nothing does not mean it doesn't exist. There are fundamental particles that are not made of anything in our universe and they exist.
Ibn Taymiyyah's argument as I understand from the video is erroneous. In paradise, we live for ever but we are not eternal. Let me explain: we are born, die and then enter paradise (inshaallah) and live there for 500 years. In sum, we still lived for a limited period of time that just was extended every time step. As a result, we are always limited.
Timestamps
0:37 Contingency Argument
2:40 Definition of dependency
3:14 Difference between dependency and causation
4:45 Dependency of Human/Universe
6:35 What is independent?
7:48 Qualities of Independent Being
8:30 Fallacy of Composition(1st Objection)
11:53 Definition of Parts
15:30 2nd Objection (Discussion about infinite Regress/multiverse/Infinity/Avicenna/Ibn e Taymiyyah/Al Ghazali's views about the issue)
27:7 3rd Objection (By Bertrand Russell)
32:22 4rth Objection (Retro- causality)
35:19 Grandfather paradox
41:44 5th Objection (Something from Nothing)
42:54 😊MH smiles.
Regards ~Halal Finisher
Do pray for Sapience Institute Dawah Team and for me as well so that Allah ❤️ accepts me in the field of Knowledge & Dawah Lillah ☝️ In Shaa Allah ❤️
List of lies?
He started lying just around 1:30.
@@jermsbestfriend9296
What did he lie about exactly there
I feel like I should pay for this
They do it for Allah not for money.
Wallahi
@@Firewall-q7x so they are being paid 😏...by ALLAH! INSHALLAH. Best payment by best PAYER.
Brothers you could donate towards Sapience Institute, a worthy cause.
Allah will give them better. Allahumma Ameen
"The third one is pretty pathetic indeed... which is what Bertrand Russel said" 😂😂😂
27:10
“Nature is a divine art; it cannot be the artist. It is a dominical book and cannot be the scribe. It is an embroidery and cannot be the embroiderer. It is a register and cannot be the accountant. It is the law and cannot be the power”
- Said Nursi
Did you see what’s on the top right shelf?
Beautiful quote. May I know the source?
@@sanwar2410 this quote was taken from an Ottoman book called Risale-i Nur Külliyatı by a kurdish scholar known as Said Nursi. The book has been translated into English. You'll find this quote in the volume entitled "the words".
@@sanwar2410 It's by Said Nursi, he is regarded as one of the most influential scholars in Turkey that ever lived. He has a collection of books where he combines the classic arguments of Gazali and many more - such as Hume - and creates this amazing tafsir of the Quran. He revived Islam during the most secular times of Turkey.
@@HistoryOfRevolutions Why do you say Ottoman? If I quoted something written in the Victorian Era und queen Victoria, would you say it is a "Victorian" book? Say a Turkish book, Old Literary Turkish, or atleast Ottoman Turkish. I personally call it undestroyed and naturally beautified Turkish.
This really helps in understanding the Burhān. Thank you
You have shown me the way thank you brother.
I want to, one day, teach people the same way Muhammad Hijab is teaching while chilling with a juice!
The creator just is
The objection fails to make any crucial distinction between the creator and other objects, and so it fails in its attempt to prevent at the outset a rational inquiry into the issue of whether the creator has some origin outside itself.
Jazakallahu khairan brother
Beautifully done
Like a face plant. Just funny. The guy is completely stupid
I believe a better definition for an atheist would be, “a person that does not believe in a conscious, intelligent, wilful, independent being”
@borsalinokizaru9862 How so?
Wa'alaikum assalaam wa rehmatu'LLAHI wa barakatuh
Watching it rn. I’m glad you are open to discussing what people might thought about this argument. I’m hoping ti learn from this episode like the others and hope to see this “logical” argument not turning out to a bidah. Bidahs are bad bros, I hope we avoid them.
It's nonsense.... Honestly, it's an argument that being stupid is best, best possible summary.
@@jermsbestfriend9296your statement is incoherent.
@@jermsbestfriend9296if you don't understand something that doesn't negate the fact that it is true or untrue.
Because if inability to understand something is used as an argument against something's validity then you basically would have to deny everything. There are people in the world who don't understand anything. There are people who don't understand maths but that does not mean maths is wrong
@@Ahle.haq0
Not sure how your point is meant to connect. I understand: the point being made is that stupidity should reign supreme--that's a summary of the point being made, and to the extent that it could be considered true, we would consider efficacy. Stupidity is not effective so it is not true that stupidity should reign supreme.
@@Ahle.haq0 these arguments and this series like others like it are intended for more academic or pseudo/wannabe-academics as well as people whose minds work this way when personally contemplating. This level of detail is not needed for the general laymen. However, these arguments exist because the arguments presented make sense and resonate with that intended audience.
Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of Hijab’s arguments here
Saying the universe is contingent is not committing a fallacy of composition, because the universe is not dependent just because it is composed of dependent parts, but because it has parts in the first place, and anything that has parts cannot be necessary.
if they do say the universe is eternal and independent, one should show they are no longer an atheist, but then point out the universe cannot be independent, regardless of whether it is a infinite multiverse or infinite universe, because it can be added to, subtracted from, and conceived of in another way. A necessary fact is 2+2=4 and there is no other conceivable possibility. The universe is not like this. The planets can rotate in a different direction.
This wasn’t mentioned but some atheists say the universe is an eternal singularity crunching and banging. The singularity is obviously dependent if it is changing. And you can still ask, what does the singularity depend on in order to go from one state to another. If it is eternally in one state, it requires agency or an external agent in order to change.
The universe from nothing argument and the brute fact one are just laughable. And the retro-causation one allows the grandfather paradox, where a person goes in the past to kill his grandfather but then how does he exist. Hijab says that with causation it is possible that B occurs without A happening, however with contingency/dependency, B is contingent on A so B cannot exist without A, and if it can exist without something it is contingent upon, then it is independent and the atheist is no longer an atheist. I may not have understood this part correctly.
there is no such thing as a fallacy of composition
Absolute banger of a comment akhi
@@amirbro4606 what makes you say that
Sheesh well said
If someone denies the existence of parts in the first place rather claims that only the whole is real and necessary then how would you refute him?
To merciful hearts
I am a mother of orphaned children from Palestine and the Gaza Strip. I appeal to the good people and doers of good. I appeal to the servants of the Most Merciful. Life is difficult and we have no breadwinner. The conditions are harsh in Gaza. We live without shelter in a very bad Zingo room. and winter
Forgive me for entering this way, the circumstances are stronger than me, the number in front of you in the picture
Londoniyyah video 10 and 11 hasn’t been updated to the playlist of the channel.
very fun and fascinating discussion! Even if you did not watch the previous parts.
Salaama, I think in the new Census of the UK you will find most people 50% will be marked as Atheists. Youth as much as 70% +. A substantial amount of people are delving into "Spiritualism" DMT/Ayeausca etc.. this is rooted in platonic Monism philosophy as well as Hinduism. More research of this relative to the Abrahamic faiths i think needs to be done. The youth you will find are heading the spiritual arena. Christianity and Contingency argument etc. i personally feel is a minority thought among the masses. This is just my opinion.
first alhumdulillah
first to be second Alhamdulilah
Mashallah
About fallacy of composition, can't we say there are types of qualities of a composition, like quantitative qualities and physical qualities. Where quantitative qualities are things we can put a number on like: size, weight, temperature and so on. While physical qualities are otherwise like; colour, texture etc. In this case we find that quantitative qualities may not match in terms of the parts and whole while physical qualities just might. And see if causeability is a physical quality.
Yes my bro. Hamza tzortzis writes in his book the divine reality that limited parts make limited wholes. A house made of limited parts is limited for example and there is no fallacy of composition.
19:15 allow me to make a correction: belief in a multiverse is not a substitution for a god. Belief in a multiverse is is not a point which anyone holds with the degree of conviction which a theist holds the belief in his god. Belief in the multiverse is more of an informed guess for which we may never find any proof...but it serves to point out the vast number of possibilities of which we may not be aware. But is all boils down to the fact that we really have no idea what the universe is.
Well, it is used, even if it is not a logical substitution.
Then what you think atheists use as substitution of the necessary being argument ?
@@midoevil7 you have to differentiate between agnostic atheist like myself and Bart Ehrmann and pure atheists. As an agnostic atheist, I am open to the possibility of a necessary being but I don't know what shape, form or attributes this being has. I can't disprove nor prove its existence and attributes either way. A pure atheist considers that the necessary existence might be the energy from which the big bang arose.this energy might be eternal.
@@markorbit4752
I see, but this argument of initial-energy being the necessary existence doesn't hold as well, it doesn't explain the order of the universe, and I think it is basically the universe is what it is argument.
Regarding agnostic atheism, I agree with you that this is where logic alone can lead to.
I think the next question is:
Many scriptures claimed it is the creator's message to humanity, but which one is actually true?
Masha ALLAH
You do realize he is lying?
Dependency is not equal to relevance. The universe / multiverse may be dependent on a necessary existence, but that does not mean that the necessary existence is of any relevance to us humans.
Would you say you're not relevant to your mother after being dependant on her as an infant?
@@RealVerses don't be stupid. I never said dependency IS NOT RELATED to relevance. I said it is not equal. My peace life depends on the peace treaties that exists between world powers like USA and China and Russia. But those treaties are not relevant to my daily life because they are too far removed from me to have any relevance. If we our universe was created in a lab by being so big we can't even imagine, and those being were created by even bigger beings who were created by the necessary existence , then the necessary existence would not be relevant to us, even if our existence depends on it.
@@markorbit4752 That just sounds selfish mate.
@@RealVerses you don't seem to know what selfish means. Maybe English is not your first language
@@markorbit4752 A simple dictionary definition of 'the word selfish' sums up your previous comment.
A Quranic Ayat comes to mind that is repeated more than once: "So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?"
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.
Amazing stuff..as always.
What's amazing? How foolish he is?
@@jermsbestfriend9296 I guess hijab himself is an atheist, he just trying to survive . What you think?
Would be great full if he could address this objection
The fact it can be conceived otherway does not necessitate that it's contingent from the perspective of the fallacy of composition. If the parts are contingent the universe is not if it always maintains that energy released after the rearrangement of the forms within it
If we say the universe is made up of energy that gets rearranged in different forms constantly . Those parts are contingent but the universe is not because it keeps the same amount of energy within it. It never gets more or less. Therefore the universe is necessary in the abstract form . Therefore the universe is independent . ???
Why not (about the Universe) : we do not know. And that would - today - be the right answer.
Maybe science will give us an answer one day in the future.
Not religion. Not philosophy.
Science is based on philosophy. Therefore, if science is a valid way of coming to truth, then so is philosophy.
Also, because philosophy is what defines the boundaries of science, if there is no philosophical answer, there is no scientific answer.
You would not say “we do not know” about anything else but you say it when it comes to this.
Why don’t you just say “we do not know” about science as well then?
The fact that you’re so ready to throw away philosophy once it doesn’t fit your paradigm is incredibly disingenuous.
It’s almost as if you worship science instead of God.
Wait so one thing which has confused me for a long time is the whole concept of "anything which is made up of parts is dependent". What I mean by this is: what about fundamental particles? And also, doesn't the universe sustain itself? Like I don't see Allah coming in and making the universe work or anything. How is the universe dependent? They keep saying it's made of parts, but I'm failing to see how that makes it dependent. If they say it's because it can be arranged in another way, then they're saying it's dependent, but that's kind of like using causation. Like something caused it to be like that. But dependency is something needs to exist in order for that dependent thing to exist. How does Allah's existence, and/or lack thereof, impact the universe? Just something I'm confused on.
I only got an answer for the first one. I'm young and don't understand much but from my basic understanding is that Things that are made from a variety of parts are depending on the parts existing for itself to exist. For example a triangle must have 3 straight lines. If straight lines didn't exist. A triangle would not exist. Similarly, if you somehow remove certain particles from the universe then it's conditions will be completely different e.g hydrogen. effects black holes, stars, life, gravity.
BTW we can make a video game and not be present while it is still running. Walt disney is dead but mickey mouse still exists. Just because you can't see a creator doesn't mean he doesn't exist
@@bargink5287 thanks. The main issue for me is fundamental particles. If they exist, they aren't made of parts. So are they considered necessary existences?
@@zaidsyed8501
I think we might be overthinking here. If we are agreed that the universe is dependent via its made up parts, but then say the fundamental particles in this universe is of necessary existence based on the argument of parts...I believe the next logical question should be whether necessary existence is possible for stuff like fundamental particles (i.e is it possible to prove that it exists on its own or was it created into existence?). I’d argue it’s not conceivable to argue that anything in this universe can be proven to have necessary existence whether it’s made up of parts or not since one may always question how it exists and why is it the way it is and if it is a form of necessary existence then is it existing infinitely?
Idk if that helps or makes any sense
@@symbiotezilla12345 So what you're saying is once we get to the level of fundamental particles, we go into a kind of Kalam argument, asking where it all came from, there had to be a beginning etc.? I guess that kind of makes sense...
Another thing would be that the necessary existence is something which is unlimited, meaning it requires no explanation. Fundamental particles are limited per se, because they are within the bounds of this reality I guess. Thank you for your take, I have a lot to think about!
@@zaidsyed8501
I guess you could say that. I think the point of this lecture was merely to show how the universe as a WHOLE is contingent and prove that contingency by using the composition argument - which as Br Hijab explained is a great counter to the questions posed by athiests against the contingency argument.
Whereas if we get to the nitty gritty such as fundamental particles or energy and etc then I am unsure if the intent of the lecture really applies to these phenomenon - since as I said the lecture seeks to strengthen the contingency argument overall. So if the universe as a whole is contingent then it is dependent if I understood correctly.
I do believe you are kinda forced to go kalam on stuff like fundamental particles but perhaps contingency still applies because those fundamental particles could be rearranged to form anything rather than what they form specifically in our universe - thus implying dependency?
Idk but all I know is to the very least you are forced to ask where those particles came from unless we supposed that they existed infinitely- which to me personally would make no sense.
What if, when the interlocutor answers the question of what's the best explanation for the universe to be stable, uniform and predictable enough to be life permitting, by saying "we dont know" and then use the God of the gaps argument against the proposition that Allah is the best explanation?
Then your just going to have a dead beat conversion 😂
The things I really don’t understand is that you can remove or add parts and therefore it’s dependent. Can you guys give me example of this? What is it that can be removed/added? I don’t get it man.
Cut your nails ......
May ALLAH (S.W.T) guide us all
It is dependent on parts
30:00
Yeah. People literally give this infantile line of argument a name. The "Brute Fact Argument". Funny thing is the same atheists would never allow any religious person saying God exists 'just because'. Speaks to the double standard Russell and his followers live by.
Bez the universe exists since we can see it existing
Can't say the same for god
I do not get the argument of changing forms and independence. How do we define "form" here?
Londonistan!
I dont understand how the arguement from contingency doesnt fall in the falacy of composition. Someone pls explain to me.
29:30
We do not say God just is.
We say God just is necessary.
We would never except an explanation this childish. For example.... "Why am I happy? I just am." "Why didn't a stranger cook my breakfast? He just didn't." "What color is the sky? It's just blue."
If you can take the part out of it, it's dependent
Like , can you take the sun out of this universe?
How?
If a wood turn into a chair, means it's can be any other way!! Dependent!
Like,,,
Doesn't explain anything isn't it
@@randomiser9908atheist in are dumb people
In someway, independent things has common things with dependent, and the independent thing can be dependent on other factor, but when the independent thing has no common things with the dependents and the independent cannot be dependent in any form, then this would be the absolute independent. Example for the absolute independent not exist in the nature. here the God existence is logical, as mentioned in the Quran, nothing equivalent to Allah, also the eternal (Al-Samad).
Can anyone explain why there can't be an infinite cause?
No they cannot.
They simply continue to maintain that the sniper will never take the shot.
then you would have to deal with infinite regress of events the process will never start ie universe would not come to existence : Was the universe created by something else created? Will that satisfy the
questioner? Obviously not. The contentious person will undoubtedly
ask, “Then, what created that thing?” If we were to answer, “Another
created thing”, what do you think he would say? Yes, you guessed
right: “What created that thing?” If this ridiculous dialogue continued
forever, then it would prove one thing: the need for an uncreated
creator.
Why? Because we cannot have the case of a created thing, like the
universe, being created by another created thing in an unlimited series
going back forever (known as an infinite regress of causes). It simply
does not make sense. Consider the following examples:
• Imagine that a sniper, who has acquired his designated
target, radios through to HQ to get permission to shoot.
HQ, however, tells the sniper to hold on while they seek
permission from someone higher-up. Subsequently, the
person higher-up seeks permission from the guy even
higher up, and so on and so on. If this keeps going on
forever, will the sniper ever get to shoot the target? Of
course not! He will keep on waiting while someone else is
waiting for a person higher up to give the order. There has
to be a place or person from where the command is issued;
a place where there is no one higher. Thus, our example
illustrates the rational flaw in the idea of an infinite regress
of causes. When we apply this to the universe we have to
posit that it must have had an uncreated creator. The
universe, which is a created thing, could not be created by
another created thing, ad infinitum. If that were the case
this universe would not exist. Since it exists, we can
dismiss the idea of an infinite regress of causes as an
irrational proposition.
• Imagine if a stock trader at the stock exchange was not able
to buy or sell his stocks or bonds before asking permission
from the investor. Once the stock trader asked his investor,
he also had to check with his investor. Imagine if this went
on forever. Would the stock trader ever buy or sell his
stocks or bonds? The answer is no. There must be an
investor who gives the permission without requiring anypermission himself. In similar light, if we apply this to the
universe, we would have to posit a creator for the universe that is uncreated.Once the above examples are applied to the universe directly, it
will highlight the absurdity of the idea that the universe ultimately was
created by something created. Consider if this universe, U1, was
created by a prior cause, U2, and U2 was created by another cause,
U3, and this went on forever. We wouldn’t have universe U1 in the
first place. Think about it this way, when does U1 come into being?
Only after U2 has come into being. When does U2 come into being?
Only after U3 has come into being. This same problem will continue
even if we go on forever. If the ability of U1 to come into being was
dependent on a forever chain of created universes, U1 would never
exist.146 As Islamic philosopher and scholar Dr. Jaafar Idris writes:
“There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of nonexistents… The fact, however, is that there are existents around us; therefore, their ultimate cause must be something other than temporal
causes.
Imagine a casual series of A,B and C where A is pure cause which is not effect of other and C is pure effect which is not cause of another .B is the intermediate member which has both the attributes of cause and effect because it is the cause of C and the effect of A . A ceases to exist the B and C necessarily ceases to exist therefore A is more worthy of existence then B and C . Now it doesn't matter if the intermediates are one or many finite or infinite they will still have the same characterstics of intermediates like B such that it can't exist without a pure cause like A .
Suppose two infinite series iof A and B such that series A is ten member shorter then series B now if their is a member in series A for each member of series B then A should be greater then series by a finite amount and that which greater than other by finite amount can't it self be infinite .
hope this helps
Love you hijab bro
Tell the brother whispering to open his mouth and use his voice.
Just as we do with the universe, the fact that God is an entity we could also conceived His existence to be in some other way.
@borsalinokizaru9862 the fundamental principle of this argument, is that, all that is within the range or our perception could have been different, therefor there must be something that made it to be the way it is. That something in itself could not been conceived to be different than it is.
I would say that the only thing which is within our empirical range that can not be conceived differently is consciousness, for the mere act of trying to conceived the possibility of it differently than it is, happens within it self.
Consciousness is the necessary principle upon which all other things exists. This universal consciousness will point to God.
If you want to present it this argument to an atheist you have to show the steps
Human constructs - philosophical arguments and/or scientific naturalism/secular science and/or human opinions can't ascertain of anything or prove anything of the truth....they can be awakening reality or dreaming reality!
Plz have episode on deism
I wanna be part of the role playing :( loll
Just because something sounds logical and rational, doesn't mean it's true. When dealing with things unknown, it might be that which we consider illogical that ends up being true
@AwarenessOfDay I agree. That is why it makes no sense when people claim to know the truth about supernatural things
Yes only when your ideas are shown to be irrational can the irrational be true.
@@boygenius538_8 read up on quantum entanglement and quantum physics. Sometimes, things we would consider irrational end up being true
Your argument also applies to the natural including your senses. Your argument is essentially we cannot know anything. Sure but then what? You know that premise is bs. No one operates irl thinking that they can't know anything.
This is a contradiction, its like saying, that a squared circle can be true.mor just because im not telling the truth, doesnt mean im lying, this is what atheism does, lol when it comes to LOGICAL SELF EVIDENT DEDUCTIVE ARGUEMENTS YOUR SCEPTICISM SKY ROCKETS, BUT to irrational and illogical things the knob of skepticism goes down😂 like buddy, with all due respect. Reflect upon what your saying.
The thought of Ibn Taymiyyah of comparing a perpetual sustainance of Hell and Paradise in the future to ascertain perpetual creation processes in the past seem flawed because the set of creation processes then naturally exists eternaly, pre and post, which is an attribute of Allah, that only He is eternal. Post-eternality or immortality in the case of human souls is not a problem because it only applies within the Mercy of Allah and He sustains us. Pre-eternality, even if it only applies to a set seems dangerously close to the christian idea of an infinitely generated son of God.
It's just my two cents and brother Hijab didn't agree with this view of ibn Taymiyyah anyway but I'm open to discussion.
Asalaamualaykum brother
There is a difference between infinite and eternal. Infinite either has no start and no end, or has a start and no end, but in both cases it depends on time and space to exist.
Eternal on the other hand, is beyond time and space, very different from infinite.
Allah is eternal ie, He is beyond time and space.
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
It would be nice if Mohamed hijab, could explain how the ontological based of this argument could not be used against God. We could conceive God to be on some other way
❤️❤️❤️
some brothers that are listening in the class need to speak with some heart instead of stuttering and speaking half heartedly. speak clearly and with some confidence 😐
Is there any level of scientifically known existence that is not dependent?
Yes, the triangularity of a triangle, is a necessary existence and is independent of everything.
Also the laws of physics are independent existences that are discover and not created
Not any physical thing within the universe, no.
@@yassershariflaws are PRESCRIPTIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE, not creative, and a NECASSARY EXISTENCE is DIFFERENT from a necassary FACT facts are also prescriptive and descriptive, existence is more FOUNDATIONAL,
@@ayeshayasir8665 okay describe means we use words to represent what we observe. Prescribe means, we don't have words to describe what we observe so we grant or give a description. An example of a prescription would be sweetness.
So if you ask anyone "I never tasted sweetness but I want to understand sweetness, give me those descriptions of sweetness, after hearing them I will have the complete understanding of sweetness." but sweetness cannot be put into words, the only answer to this question is " eat some honey and that taste is sweetness" this the word sweetness was prescribed onto the experience is sweet taste.
But in the case of a triangle, we have the notion of forms or shapes or polygons, we know what are angles whether described or prescribed, it doesn't matter, the triangle exists outside of the human mind and its triangularity is necessary, if not then it wouldn't be a triangle. A² + B² = C². This is true even if no triangles were ever discovered.
Also necessary existence and a necessary fact are the same thing. Since non existence is not a thing, a necessary fact exists by necessity. Thus a necessary fact is also a necessary existence. They are 2 perspectives of the same thing. If I said "I am a necessary being" if it's true then the fact of me being a necessary being is necessarily true. But it cannot be the case that something exists necessarily but not be a necessary fact.
I hope I was able to convey this in a way you're able to understand
Thanks
@@ayeshayasir8665
Hummm.. Existence is more fundamental.
As we know
Things either exist necessarily or potentially at impossibly.
So those existing things that come into existence and leave existence are called potential existence. But existence itself is not like that. Because existence cannot come into existence. Because then its cause would have to exist. Thus the cause for existence would be existence itself which is a contradiction and it wouldn't answer our question as to what is the cause of existence
At 12:20 Muhammad Hijab makes a completely arbitrary and ad hoc delimitation on the definition of parts that he read out wrspt Allah because he admits it means his understanding of real distinct entitive attributes result in Allah swt having parts. His position means that Allah swt is a conglomerate being made up of parts but this is something no Muslim will countenance and so Hijab just chooses to change the definition of 'part'
This isn't honest and it certainly isn't tawheed.
The existence of consciousness is sufficient to deny induction logic of the philosophical contingency/dependency argument/proof for existence of God. Everyone has one own independent conscious mind!
A person's mind/consciousness is dependent upon the person existing, if the person dies so does the person's mind, therefore our mind cannot be independent. Our mind is also susceptible to change caused by other factors e.g. dementia, alzheimer, alcohol/drugs, so therefore it is dependent.
20:20 " but once again DAS IST MATHS"....A GERMAN guy I'm guessing?
It's scarry you could be this out there with a western education.
07:05 atheist just don't have any proof of god.
14:56
Ustadh , but we don't say "Everything which begins to exist has a Cause" because Some events in the Universe we observe have causes. Rather our Reasons are different , for example Something coming into existence from Ex Nihilo and By Ex Nihilo is impossible therefore "Everything which begins to exist must a Foundation which provides Potential for it to happen" such Foundation can be called Cause , as far as i understand. and it's not subject to the objection of Composition fallacy , it's more fundamental than Observations and Universe , it's metaphysical
Assalamualikum bro
@@zakyzayn5361 wa alykum Assalam bro
@@agadirand4four347 bro , we don't use Observation to prove Causal Principle , it's more fundamental than that ,
And it's metaphysically impossible that Something comes into existence from nothing and by nothing , or From Ex Nihilo and By Ex Nihilo ,
Therefore everything which comes into existence require "Cause" in order to come into existence.
We don't need to discuss if this is true in the Universe or not , it's necessarily true independent of the Universe , because Non existence do not have potential by definition hence can't produce anything ,
(God creating Universe without material is different issue , because God is present as a Cause)
I don't agree with Ibn Teymiyyah. If you allow that idea, a new contention will arise. BTW, the future events are not infinity.
AstagfiruLlah, but cant we say that Allah has attributes, which can be consivable in another way?
Atheists don't say "the universe just is"...today. we now know of the big bang, and we concede that we don't know what the universe was BEFORE the big bang. But no one says the universe just is....
On the contrary, theists say "Allah just is".
An infinite regress of contingent things is an impossibility. If you have an infinite past, you never have a present(we would NOT be having this conversation right now if the Universe never came into existence).
A creator of all things is necessary and therefore uncaused.
36:00
الي القلوب الرحيمة
انا ام لأطفال ايتام من فلسطين قطاع غزة أناشد الطيبون وفاعلين الخير اناشد عباد الرحمن الحياة صعبة ولامعيل لناوالظروف قاسية بغزة ونعيش بلا مأوى بغرفة زينقو سيئة للغاية والله عدم واتمنى من الله فاعل خير يساعد اطفالي ويعمل الخير لوجه الله تعالي يستطيع مساعدتنا بمصاريف البيت وتشطيب الغرفة من المطر والشتاء
سامحوني لدخولي بهالطريقة الظروف أقوى مني الرقم امامكم بالصورة.
Lets disprove this in one sentence
God could have been otherwise ( his attributes like omni love )
God is contingent
but his attributes are dependent on him,because he chose to be that way because he is THE necessary existence
@@a_t_l7031 does not matter
I have demonstrated to u that his parts or attributes are contingent thus he is contingent
The very fact u used the word choice means there existed other possibilities of him existing in other ways
👁👄👁bravo
U follow a contingent god
@@arianagrandaremix8858 let's say it's possible that he could exist with any other attributes but it's still necessary that he's what he's now because he chose to be that way,the reason for this is that we believe that Allah's knowledge is above everything and since he's the necessary being it means that even if there was another way for his attributes to exist it's still necessary that he exist in this way because it's the correct one,so you just misunderstood the argument+ his attributes have nothing to do with his necessary existence because this is not arguing the Islamic believe of the creator , but the existence of a one.
@@a_t_l7031 👁👄👁mate contingent things are defined as things which can be imagined to be otherwise or can be otherwise
Your god fits that definition so by definition he's contingent not necessary
I'm just doing what Mohamed hijab did by the same method he concluded the universe as contingent
💁♀️ if his attributes can be any other way that means he is NOT NECESSARY by definition
Your right tho he's not directly arguing for his god bez the premisses don't conclude that
However, he is concluding that so it's safe to say he's arguing for god 😶
Ps: I think ur conflating being eternal with necessary existence
Those are not the same concepts
@@arianagrandaremix8858 i understand what you're saying and i agree that the attributes themselves are contingent if we separated them, but what i believe is that those attributes are necessary by their relation to god himself, because if you said that those attributes could've existed in any other way it's the same when you say that "1+1 " could be other than 2, which is not totally wrong but the percentage of it being true is so low ( using mathematics we're able to prove something like this) however it doesn't change the fact that the only right answer is 2, so what i mean is that if god chose those attributes then they're the only right attributes for him because he himself is the necessary being which means that he's all powerful and all knowledgeable so your argument itself is wrong since it's depicting the attributes as the god which is not true at all.
+BtW until this moment i was agreeing with you and arguing from what you believe in , but what do you mean by "his attributes could've been any other way"?? you don't know any of the other ways so you have no bases for your counter argument 🤦🏻♂️
You can't make any true statement regarding the universe because you don't even know what it is. No one does
Ok here is a very easy objection.
Is Allah perfect?
Yes, so can ALLAH CHANGE?
Yes, they believe Allah speaks with letters and sounds and arabic. They believe Allah descends. They believe Allah lives etc.
So how van Allah be perfect because he has changed. From the mosy perfect, so the change has made Allah more perfect. Therefore he wasn't perfect before.
So ask can Allah change?
descends? what's that supposed to mean+you're talking about the way Allah chose to speak with us, that's not a real argument because we don't believe that Allah speaks in the same way we do
the first and third one does not prove anything, the 2nd one is a wahabi belief
@@zahinelahi2655 source?
AS AN AGNOSTIC, THE CONTINGENCY ARGUMENT IS NOT THE TYPE OF ARGUMENT THAT OF ARGUMENT THAT KEEPS ME AWAKE AT NIGHT WONDERING IF I SHOULD GO BACK TO THEISM.
There's a reason people lie.
@@ShahzadAhmad-nb6si NOT understanding a philosophical argument , what has that got to do with lying??
I'm also agnostic and the argument from contingency is definitely the type of argument that keeps me awake at night; as evidenced by the fact that I'm awake right now! However it's worth exploring why you might think this. Firstly, whenever MH tries articulating this argument it turns out to be the least compelling (or most boring) argument you've ever heard. It's almost as if he doesn't understand what he's talking about, despite having a PhD in this. I'll have to read his book on this later. I would recommend Joshua Rasmussen instead. Hell, even Hamza Tzortzis does a better job explaining this than him. Secondly, the most contentious aspect about this argument is the "gap problem." It does not follow that the Necessary Being or foundation of reality is God. It's notoriously difficult to prove that it is. This is what philosophers attempt to prove in stage 2 of the contingency argument. Sadly MH hardly brings this up, almost as if he's totally ignorant of it. Consistent atheists that don't suddenly become radical skeptics when this argument is presented usually concede to all of the premises in stage 1 and agree there's an NB or foundation of reality. That's what Graham Oppy does for example. Their Necessary being is naturalistic.
@----f Thank you for your reply. I hasten to add that I have no training in Philosophy. But I go by the maxim, if something doesn't make sense and there is no evidence to support it, then it probably isn't true. In closing I would like to quote Peter VavbInwagen. He has been professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame University . This is what he has said and I quote "" I have to admit as a philosopher, you'd be crazy to believe anything of ultimate significance on the basis of a philosophical argument"" End of quote. Ironically to the best of my knowledge Professor Inwagen is a Christian. I admire Professor Inwagen's
intellectual honesty. All the best.
All this is useless if there isn't a islamic grounding. And most people have no islamic reading.
It's not useless at all lol. And Hijab has PLENTY of videos proving Islam. Check them out💪🏼
I wholeheartedly agree
EDIT: I can now disprove Allah with certainty. See the video: The Ultimate Proof That God Is Not Real! My own version will be out soon.
I say this as an atheist: There can be a "non-necessary" thing. Something which is eternal and changes or becomes disassembled. Think of a triangle that changes into a V. What it's *made of* could still be eternal even though it is no longer a triangle. So what is God made of? He isn't made of anything? Then you are defining God as an absolute nothing. If you say God is made of something then could this God or eternal thing be both eternal and change? Become disassembled? Of course it could because what it's made of is eternal. Talking necessary and contingent only is a false dichotomy. We're now at a 50/50 as to whether the eternal thing is necessary or non-necessary. I can get you to probably not necessary but that is for a different discussion: First we have to agree on the above.
If I understood correctly, you are saying that there can be a non necessary thing that is eternal because of the parts it is made of. The triangle is dependent on the straight lines to exist. God is not a physical thing so it is not made up of parts.
An infinite regress of contingent things is an impossibility. If you have an infinite past, you never have a present(we would NOT be having this conversation right now if the Universe never came into existence).
A creator of all things is necessary and therefore uncaused.
@@ApologeticsAddict Yes the eternal thing that created everything else is eternal, uncaused. But it would still be made of something. We're talking about whether it's necessary -- eternal and doesn't change -- for certain. It is not for certain / not certainly necessary as I have explained.
@@BoItzmannBrain Yes exactly so you're saying God isn't made of anything or God is made of nothing: No parts, nothing. You're just defining God as an absolute nothing without realizing it is my argument. The straight lines could be eternal is what I'm saying in our metaphor. It could change into a V shape so the triangle isn't eternal or neither is the V but the lines it's *made of* are. And remember what does non-physical mean? Again made of nothing.
@@reincarnationentertainment9885
I agree with everything you said except for the "what does non-physical mean? Again made out of nothing" there are non-physical things like consciousness. Made of nothing does not mean it doesn't exist. There are fundamental particles that are not made of anything in our universe and they exist.
Ibn Taymiyyah's argument as I understand from the video is erroneous. In paradise, we live for ever but we are not eternal. Let me explain: we are born, die and then enter paradise (inshaallah) and live there for 500 years. In sum, we still lived for a limited period of time that just was extended every time step. As a result, we are always limited.
Paradise is forever after not 500 years
@@boygenius538_8 yes
Hijab way out of his depth here.
He's just talking specious nonsense.