P1 Angry Atheist Agrees With Mohammed Hijab! Mohammed Hijab And Visitor Speakers Corner

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 18 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 37

  • @robleluuqlev7203
    @robleluuqlev7203 Рік тому +7

    They using big words to argue about nothing of value that’s leading to something of substance, I prefer when the discussion is educational and we learn something

  • @rahimahmed9113
    @rahimahmed9113 Рік тому +17

    This guy had a debate a few days ago I think it was brother suboor and he got smashed

    • @sanahussain4755
      @sanahussain4755 Рік тому +1

      he did

    • @pbky4676
      @pbky4676 Рік тому +1

      These guys talk about things they do not know about. On the previous day the guy in left of M.H, was caught on claiming wrong things confidently on Quantum theory.

  • @angelosaleh8344
    @angelosaleh8344 Рік тому +4

    All those years wasting your energy on a theory that you cannot understand and that will not save you to the Hereafter. Go pray before it's TOO LATE! Alhamdulillah for Islam.

  • @islaam541
    @islaam541 Рік тому +1

    اللهم أحفظ محمد حجاب والدعاة للأسلام ❤❤

  • @The_Third_Eye_3
    @The_Third_Eye_3 Рік тому +1

    this was a debate on who could articulate themselves in the most pompous way. who knew the most authors of books/letters, what the criteria of understanding was and 90% definition of irrelevant words. vocabulary d*** swinging contest.

  • @Oneummahgeneration
    @Oneummahgeneration Рік тому

    Indeterministic act from a necessary being isn’t problematic for a belief that a necessary being caused contingent things. However if someone adopts a theistic model called divine simplicity it creates another problem such as intentional collapse and problems of having really relations with created things but doesn’t have the same problem with the concept from ahlel sunnah wal Jamaal which rejects the deviant position of divine simplicity.

  • @kaytee1127
    @kaytee1127 Рік тому

    They got hung up on explaining the proposition entailing use of PSR with the proposition itself necessarily requiring the use of PSR to be true. There are many things that haven't or can't be explained that are still true. Explaining them doesn't suddenly reify them. So yeah, the idea that the explanation itself makes it true is reductive.

  • @khitir1500
    @khitir1500 Рік тому

    The statement MH keeps repeating is not an argument its just a statement or proposition. An argument needs premises that lead to a conclusion.

  • @TheOkkeh
    @TheOkkeh Рік тому

    Khabib would say "brother who gave you that shirt, what's that color", and it seem it attracts people who don't know that they don't know

  • @reactionary
    @reactionary Рік тому +4

    haha. they didnt read a book they argue about.

    • @AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable
      @AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable Рік тому

      *sahih albukhari 7137* Homosexual mupedohammad associated himself a partner with al Lah, which is shirk, and declared himself god of islame

    • @YusufIslam1
      @YusufIslam1 Рік тому

      That my friend is the definition of an ultracrepidarian.

    • @AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable
      @AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable Рік тому

      @Sp33dRace How do muslim men greet other muslim men? By getting naked and kissing down the side and below? *sunan abi dawud 5224*
      *_How?_*_ To apostatize from islame, say out loud: I denounce and renounce muhammad_
      *_When?_*_ The international apostacy day for muslims is on 22nd of August_

  • @AShaif
    @AShaif Рік тому

    I think Hijab was beating around the bush WHILE he knows how to answer it, because he responded to it in another video ( Argument Against Contingency Argument | Mohammed Hijab - Caliph channel ), I don't know why he kept pushing on the other guy to enunciate how a necessary being renders anything it produces necessary and not contingent. anyways, see below
    First, what is necessitarianism? and is it different from determinism ?
    Let's leave this and get back to it shortly.
    The postulation : There cannot be any world (possible world) where ONLY contingent things exist. Meaning they should depend on an external independent being, and if the postulation is true, then that independent being is The necessary being.
    Now how do we determine if the postulation is true? using C to mean the set of all contingent beings: for C here to be the independent being, must be existent to create itself, which is not possible; even on metaphysical coherentism (X depends on Y and Y on Z , but Z on X), it is not analogous with the universe because time is linear in one direction, the grandfather can't be the effect of their son!.
    So, C can't be the independent being, then it's outside of it. Let's call it N. If it's the case, then N is necessary, so if it's necessary, then whatever it produces is either indetermined or determined.
    So, is it the case that N has no will but to create it as such (indeterministic)? or N has a will to "determine" the thing out of many possibilities of C?
    Remember the first point about necessitarianism? well, our world is contingent, dependent, and could have been in any other way. The set of C could have been differently organized, formed, missing elements or have more elements. Nothing in C in abstraction emphasizes C's necessity to be existent, let alone being in a particular form/shape/number etc.. If it's contingent in abstract, then it's determined.. determined by the independent necessary being. (for more refer to particularization argument in Burhan Book)
    Now, regarding Modal collapse "If N is necessary, then C is necessary, since sufficient reasons entail what they explain."
    N is necessary, C is determined, so in a sense, it is necessary , but "necessary due to another necessary, and not necessary in and of itself". in philosophical jargon, N is necessary a se (independently) while C is necessary ab alio (dependently). Determined = necessary ab alio (dependently).
    So, it's not a modal collapse if we understand the different types of necessity here. Google below
    Necessary but Dependent Beings?
    William Lane Craig - biola university, February 12, 2016

  • @HH_1988
    @HH_1988 Рік тому +2

    Fruitless discussion

  • @aabdo1770
    @aabdo1770 Рік тому +2

    Mashallah muhammad hijab is huuuuge

    • @ashsuri1289
      @ashsuri1289 Рік тому

      in Islam your not allowed to where clothes thats tight its revealing thats is for men. I wonder why he dosnt follow such a simple rule?

  • @bazd313
    @bazd313 Рік тому +1

    No quran or hadith mentioned. What is the point of this conversation? Its literally just a bunch a big words with no good points or anything enlightening.

    • @HH_1988
      @HH_1988 Рік тому

      No point at all.

    • @1.14kWithoutContent
      @1.14kWithoutContent Рік тому

      I really enjoy it even though i don't understand it Lol

    • @suhail8240
      @suhail8240 Рік тому +1

      just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's meaningless. I bet you think a lecture on quantum physics is pointless because it has 'big words' which you don't find 'enlightening'.

  • @M_J_TN
    @M_J_TN Рік тому

    They offer nothing but empty words , they want to look like they understand what they're saying.

  • @eisamahmood5608
    @eisamahmood5608 Рік тому +1

    Just feels like stoner philosophy with no real end point icl

  • @reactionary
    @reactionary Рік тому

    where's pt.2

  • @AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable
    @AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable Рік тому +1

    Why was mupedohammad pdf file *sunan abi dawud 2121*

    • @kaytee1127
      @kaytee1127 Рік тому +9

      Rent free in your head.

    • @otifa2470
      @otifa2470 Рік тому

      oh ok answer then
      Isaac married Rebecca at the age of 40 (Genesis 25:20), this would show from the Bible that Rebecca was only three years old,

    • @AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable
      @AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable Рік тому

      @@otifa2470 So you agree that drag queen mupedohammad boned kids. WHY did he bone kids? Why was he pdf file? And why do muslims worship a confirmed pdf file?