Argument from Contingency/Dependency | Hamza Tzortzis

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 22 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 57

  • @CaliphForCaliphate
    @CaliphForCaliphate  4 роки тому +5

    "How To Give Dawah To Atheist & Agnostic" . Ustad Hamza Tzortzis Did A Seminar On this. 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: ua-cam.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg2TvzrH5vEdqgboebkksKLq.html
    Do Check Out These Playlist..I Highly Recommend
    Arguments For The Existence Of God:
    ua-cam.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg3taF93a9ThvdYOSvqSGzvp.html
    How To Convey Islam To Atheist:
    ua-cam.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg2ZQgm5DDn1qLAbbEw43Z88.html
    Islam And Liberalism:
    ua-cam.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg0aguMql_QAe-BZ6RnNJu52.html
    Islam And Feminism:
    ua-cam.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg1Vv22K2hmwOCAWGUYGvmvb.html
    Islam And Science:
    ua-cam.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg2cs-pBAnRA_wrTF7fgzSN6.html
    Islam And Evolution:
    ua-cam.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg1n9XpyooRdOiTR2z8iLG9j.html
    Dealing With Doubts:
    ua-cam.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg19DfEtNiWOyzfhvnzgvw7c.html
    Proof Of Prophethood Of Prophet Muhammad ‎ﷺ:
    ua-cam.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg3ivUwlkALW7ay0wUCU1CLJ.html
    Why Does Merciful God Allow Evil & Suffering?:
    ua-cam.com/play/PLgrhw8sbiJg0NDVy0C2I50jSuWh9bu6Be.html

  • @DBLUE-bo2qe
    @DBLUE-bo2qe 4 роки тому +1

    I'll be honest thats what I always want hahahaha, a quick way to do it all 0:05🤣🤜🤛, The way Your smiling, I feel like You know Aki

    • @DBLUE-bo2qe
      @DBLUE-bo2qe 4 роки тому

      😂, what A Luvly Brother E is Mā Sha Allah

  • @ahmadmitbi9543
    @ahmadmitbi9543 10 місяців тому +1

    Assalamu alaikom.
    I have a question
    Consider the finite set {a,b,c,d} all the elements are dependant.
    d depends on c, c depends on b, b depends on a and a depends on b (circular set)
    One may argue that this set can't exist on its own as either a or b has to be posterior to the other in order for them to exist which will result in absurdity. But to play the devil's advocate, i would argue that a and b exist by virtue of themselves (eternal) and to continually ecist they depend on eachother at the same time
    How would you respond to that ?

    • @Innominate74949
      @Innominate74949 10 місяців тому

      It would lead to them being dependent and independent (eternal) at the same time which is a logical fallacy

    • @ahmadmitbi9543
      @ahmadmitbi9543 10 місяців тому

      @@Innominate74949 yeah thank you brother i have found a solution to that.
      I have another question : does dependency concern physical qualities only and if yes why do we have to adhere to that ?

    • @Innominate74949
      @Innominate74949 9 місяців тому

      @@ahmadmitbi9543 what was the solution you found? Mind explaining it to me for the above?

    • @Innominate74949
      @Innominate74949 9 місяців тому

      @@ahmadmitbi9543 not sure brother tbh. Best advice, book a session with sapience institute for free. They have a lighthouse mentoring session where all your questions will be answered by one of the team. Id advise you to book it and benefit from it. And let me know their answers to your questions if you do decide to book it

    • @ayeshayasir8665
      @ayeshayasir8665 7 місяців тому

      ​@@ahmadmitbi9543dependancy adheres EXTERNAL factors effecting an entities physical attributes. Or behavioral physical ontological changes, such as energy, fu damental particles or quantam fields. All of these can, though may ARGUE eternal, still are subject to changes and DEPENDANT upon physical factors determining their change.

  • @fehmi35
    @fehmi35 10 місяців тому

    about the brick walls, I think composition fallacy has a fallacy. Having light parts and adding them together, we should just say that the whole is an addition of the light parts. If every human has mothers, relevant conclusion must be that humanity is made of humans who all have mothers. We can say heavy instead of addition of light parts but it is stupid to say that humanity has a mother if it is not meant as told above. So addition of contingent things is the addition of contingent things and nothing more. Why would a contingent set change and become a necessary ? It is as absurd as something coming from nothing. nothing+nothing+nothing is nothing or number + number + number is a number. contingent + contingent+ contingent is also contingent.

    • @ayeshayasir8665
      @ayeshayasir8665 4 місяці тому

      Yes exactly, anything berif of a quality cannot give.

  • @amuthi1
    @amuthi1 2 роки тому +1

    If according to dependency Allah should be the first and eternal cosmic principle, but according to islamic theology Allah can in now way be in the universe. This seems to make little sense to me.

    • @halalmode36
      @halalmode36 Рік тому

      How?

    • @ashazaliazhar8058
      @ashazaliazhar8058 Рік тому

      How do you infer that by dependency, Allah should be a part of the universe?
      The universe itself is dependent because it needs explanation for why it is the way it is when it could've been arranged in other ways. The best explanation for this is that God or Allah created the universe and determined its arrangement. Now suppose a carpenter makes a chair, it doesnt mean he becomes a part of the chair, similarly Allah can in no way be part of the universe, rather he is external to it. Hope that makes sense

    • @amuthi1
      @amuthi1 Рік тому

      @@ashazaliazhar8058 No it does not make sense. Logically arguing for a cosmological primary cause does not necessarily include extra-cosmic metaphysical stuff. At this point abrahamic monotheists jump to conclusions.

  • @ansarali4976
    @ansarali4976 2 роки тому +4

    What if we have "lots of independent things"? Not just one independent thing that is God ....can someone answer it

    • @MuhammadHassan200
      @MuhammadHassan200 2 роки тому

      Yep ALHAMDULLILAH answered

    • @MuhammadHassan200
      @MuhammadHassan200 2 роки тому

      In fact in this channel

    • @Just.A.Muslim
      @Just.A.Muslim Рік тому

      Then they won’t be independent, since if you are referring to polytheism. Then they wouldn’t be all powerful by themselves they would need each other to do something. Like how Zeus for example, can’t be all powerful since he can’t create. And in polytheism, like with the pagan Arabs. They believe in Allah (swt), and with other cultures, they have a distorted form of Allah (swt). But with the main point being that he is the ultimate God, who is one and is All powerful.

    • @ashazaliazhar8058
      @ashazaliazhar8058 Рік тому +7

      If there were lots of independent things, they would cease to be independent.
      Say there are 2 independent things- A and B.
      Now these 2 independent beings have some distinction between them and let's say A is different from B by way x.
      Now this begs the question why are they different from each other through way x and not way y.
      Therefore, they could've been different from each other in other ways, which needs explanation why they are different that way, therefore making both A and B contingent or dependant. Therefore there can be only one independent being ie Allah subhana wa taala, who is Ahad( one and only)

    • @randomuser8981
      @randomuser8981 Рік тому +1

      @@ashazaliazhar8058 How can we say that the necessary being is Allah?

  • @kaleemazad5475
    @kaleemazad5475 Рік тому

    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.

    • @ashazaliazhar8058
      @ashazaliazhar8058 Рік тому +1

      Basically, all things require explanation
      Contingent things are not self explanatory but depend on an external existence to explain them
      The Necessary existence is self explanatory and doesn't need an external explanation.
      Now there can't be only Contingent things because there would be an infinite regress and you would never be able to explain anything. Therefore a Necessary being has to exist upon which everything else depends on for explanation.

    • @kaleemazad5475
      @kaleemazad5475 Рік тому

      @@ashazaliazhar8058 thanks l. But an atheist could say " maby there could be contingent things that don't have an explanation or reason for there existence".

    • @dwsdd0851
      @dwsdd0851 Рік тому +1

      @@kaleemazad5475 this is a self-contradictory statement since “contingent” means that it needs explanation

    • @ashazaliazhar8058
      @ashazaliazhar8058 Рік тому +1

      @@kaleemazad5475 that's like saying there could be failed students that passed a test. Its contradictory

    • @matswessling6600
      @matswessling6600 7 місяців тому

      @@ashazaliazhar8058no thing in reality is self explanatory.

  • @Edward-bm7vw
    @Edward-bm7vw Рік тому +1

    1:05 That's not true at all.

    • @----f
      @----f 9 місяців тому +3

      It is, actually. I was friends with my associate professor at the University of Queensland, a PhD holder from the University of Oxford. We talked about this and I've looked at the studies for it. You should know that researchers and psychologists Justin L. Barret, Olivera Petrovich, Deborah Keleman, Paul Bloom, and more have confirmed the natural proclivity to believe in God. These are studies by atheists and peer-reviewed by atheists. Justin L. Barret (Oxford) has the biggest study on this, you should look into it

    • @----f
      @----f 9 місяців тому +3

      Even in spite of contemporary psychological and sociological research, the anthropological and historical evidence supporting the natural inclination for humans around the world to believe in a creator and the supernatural is overwhelming. Atheists have always been and still are the minority. If anything, atheism is unnatural

    • @M_HassanJ
      @M_HassanJ 6 місяців тому

      It's islamic epistemology, and secondly how can you prove it's wrong? We have justification for this so.

    • @Edward-bm7vw
      @Edward-bm7vw 6 місяців тому

      @@M_HassanJ Because there's no evidence to support. It goes against everything we know. Islam just made it all up. It's a complete lie. It goes against the history of religion, against human psychology, neurology, literally everything.

    • @makermaker11
      @makermaker11 27 днів тому

      "Thats not true at all" - Bro who doesnt want to give a reason

  • @ahmadmitbi9543
    @ahmadmitbi9543 10 місяців тому

    Why can't an independent being become dependent ?

    • @sultanmufleh2905
      @sultanmufleh2905 9 місяців тому +2

      because if your independant then to become dependant you would have to reduce and reducing an independent thing would mean it wasn't independent in the first place. Its like saying the most powerful being lost to someone more powerful than him which made him not the most powerful anymore. Those are two contradictory things.

    • @sultanmufleh2905
      @sultanmufleh2905 9 місяців тому +2

      An independant being is by defintion a person who can't be overcame, defeated, reduced or cease to exist because the independent being is by definition necessary for existence and can therefore not lose its power by something which depends on it.

  • @glutamateglutamate5728
    @glutamateglutamate5728 3 роки тому +7

    There is no coming back from this for an atheist.

    • @Edward-bm7vw
      @Edward-bm7vw Рік тому +2

      Um, nope. These arguments have already been addressed

    • @Seruna9
      @Seruna9 11 місяців тому

      If you do want to disprove God, then you have to reason a contradiction in terms with God. We define God as a substance; if God is defined as a necessarily existing substance, then for you to deny the existence of said being amounts to nothing more than a contradiction in terms and is thus an impossible position to hold.@@Edward-bm7vw

    • @abdooljackson1399
      @abdooljackson1399 10 місяців тому +2

      @@Edward-bm7vwthe objections for the contingency argument and even the kalam cosmological argument are very bad tbh with you

    • @Edward-bm7vw
      @Edward-bm7vw 10 місяців тому +2

      @@abdooljackson1399 No they highlight the logical fallacies involved with these arguments. They don't prove anything.

    • @abdooljackson1399
      @abdooljackson1399 10 місяців тому +2

      @@Edward-bm7vw yeah and also those “logically fallacies” are misunderstandings of the arguments