I reached minute 17:18 , I am a computer engineer but this is too much for me to understand , still I admire how civilized this conversation is . God bless you all.
They are defining terms, basically the whole time just so they both understand each other when M Hijab says the arguments. I’ll summarize for you, the atheist although very smart and informative was jumping the gun and making arguments for things Hijab never raised. So basically at every opportunity the atheist said a bunch of info which was irrelevant to what hijab was going to say but hijab continued to allow and grant him things cause it didn’t matter towards his actual argument and would interject when needed but also didn’t waste time on things cause it was a waste of time, and then let the atheist continue to ramble and led him to actually explain a part of the argument (hijab was gonna use) then hijab hit him with the full argument and basically showed the atheist that he himself showed that it’s impossible to be atheists and that he is now a desist/agnostic but mans couldn’t accept that. But didn’t have any other way out. He (the so called atheist) is definitely an agnostic/desist but just rejects it without a coherent argument. W for M Hijab.
@@rumi- You clearly weren't listening intently. Hijab was attempting to simply define something outside the universe (spaceless, timeless) and necessary. What theists typically do, as he did here, is also slip in the word "being" (i.e. god). They then leap from that conclusion to a personal god and from that conclusion to Allah. What the scientist quite rightly pointed out that you could reach a stopping point (a brute fact) or just say, well, the laws of physics are necessary. That's it. L for M Hijab.
He is a smart atheist who has an intelligent way of answering questions, which is commendable. But it is pretty evident that he is hyperskeptic about any topic he doesn't want to accept by providing options like uncertainty or ambiguity in a discussion. At the same, he is not applying that same level of skepticism on the evidences he brought up and is relying on them to counter anything he wishes to. No one can have productive discussions, if this is the attitude
So what you're saying is he must believe in Allah to have a productive argument...THAT'S EXACTLY what you are saying...ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID OR SOMETHING!
@AGENT OF KARMA Quran means that which is recited ahahahaha you cannot harm the unseen recitation of the glorious Quran ahahahaha you have iQ of zero checkmate
it's so funny when islamophobic make an immature irrational comments and become childish and silly , it shows how irrational and unreasonable they are and the lack of capability to have a proper intellectual discussions
@@redsox7897 first , my english is not so good , i made a little mistake my french is better secondly ten is just a nomenclature that we are using in the decimal system , which everyone use but it still one zero so 1+9 equal one zero in the decimal system 1+7 equal one zero in the octal system 1+ f equal one zeo in the hexadecimal system so 1+1 = 2 is not a logic , it's a convention
MashAllah brother Hijab has made strides since a couple of years ago, I remember watching him debate Phil 2-3 years ago and one can definetly tell bro Hijab has been gaining knowledge ever since MashAllah and May Allah bless him and allow him to continue to be a leader of this ummah
He's been gaining height, I'll give him that. His demeanour has improved too - there's been debates and interactions with Cosmic Sceptic and Apus where he's been deceitful and, at times, a complete c**k.
A very interesting discussion between two intellects. So much better to watch than vitriolic words thrown out between religions. We must keep interacting.
Not to question your moral values, but why did you take a picture with a man who is a perpetual liar, incites and has been documented to incite violence against innocent Muslims , and has been used as a key motivator in these attacks.
dimmy dunk Don’t know what God ur referring to there but I don’t worship such a God. How can a God be a warlord???? We believe God’s domain is outside of this universe???
@@janereacher3069 Considering that Hijab actually listens to the people he argues with, instead of using cheap juvenile attempts like butting in when the other person is explaining their argument, I'd say he doesn't have a big ego. But you do you.
Southpaw He doesn’t listen to people. I’m guessing that you have never actually been in his presence because if you had you wouldn’t have made such a stupid comment
Omg....brother hijab where you been?!!!! Ma sha Allah nice to see you back in the park.😍 May Allah strengthen all the brothers in their dawah work Ameen. #salam#Alidawah#mohammedhijab.
Imam-Al-Shafii once said “I have never once debated an ignorance person but lost” Phil asking for page numbers and asserting things but when Hijab does it he isn’t allowed, double standards of Phil
The Rod There’s a difference between an individual part and a whole my friend you just committed a fallacy of composition If a whole movement is constantly getting destroyed then there’s something wrong with the movement itself, and by you admitting atheists always lose then that should sound alarms for your worldview But if one ignorant amongst a dominant movement loses than that can be credited to that one ignorant and not the whole movement Secondly your presupposing atheism equates to rationality, I don’t want to commit a fallacy but some of the smartest people in history have been theists
what the necessary thing called is not the point the point is that there is a necessary being/existence, the uncause causer, The Creator, The All Mighty,The Maker,The Originator,The Initiator,The Absolute Truth, The Self-Subsisting,The Unique, The Only One,The Self Exalted,The Self-Sufficient The Ever-Living,The Sustainer, ,The Supreme, The Majestic
@@OriginalAndroidPhone Totality agree , most of these arguments ( like Hijabs ) attempt to establish things like a first cause , a necessary thing , but even if we say the argument succeeds it does not mean that the only candidate to be the thing ( e.g. first cause ) can only be a deity.
Phil: "If I don't know I what it is, I don't agree with you for the sake of weaselling out a potential point." An expert hyperskeptic who doesn't even know he himself exists.
This was actually a really good debate; I learned several things about both side's arguments. Ultimately it was an appeal to a reasonable conclusion vs. an appeal to a reasonable doubt.
@@thejoin4687 if you try to understand what God may be capable of if it existed and the properties and power that he should have to "create the universe then you will understand that's not that big of a deal for such an entity and the Quran explains it if you're interested
I immediately thought of at least three leading contemperory cosmologists: Alan Guth, Arvin Borde, Alex Vilenkin. All of them say that even if we postulate a Multiverse we face the problem of a cosmis beginning. Bold statements from the little atheist.
Saying there is a problem physicists recognize is not saying the conclusion must be there is a beginning. There are other ideas out there , Penrose for example offers Conformal Cyclic Cosmology this is infinite into the past, Richard Gott suggests the universe created itself , that there is a temporal quantum fluctuation within the universe that leads to a first cause. Loads more ideas. I don't even think all proponents of what you suggest demand a necessary beginning.
Being agnostic of the reality will eventually deplete you in your conquest for knowledge, the stalling of ambiguity and not going with certain rationale will lead to you eventually hindering the fact of certain realities, a reality you may not have been familiar with.
You're joking, right? The very act of saying 'I don't know' is what entices scientists to try and answer questions. Religion, on the other hand, claims to have all the answers already.
for the idea of min 32:40 if i understood correctly that particles go back in time (circulation of time) "Note that, regardless of whether the particle travels forward or backward in time in our quantum field theory calculation, particles we observe in the laboratory always travel forward in time". source: Schumm, B. A. (2004). Deep down things: The breathtaking beauty of particle physics. JHU Press. so just to tell you that the guy is everywhere he doesn't have one certain assertion he goes from on idea to another and he doesn't know where he stands as for hawking idea min 33:00 is just a mathematical idea it is not an experimental one he ven put an imaginary time robert sheldon criticisme him that his theory "has no basis in physics and reality" source: Was Stephen Hawking (1942-2018) right to object to the Kalam cosmological argument again he has no certainty but still he wanna inform us like there is certainty
Semasa Kami berusia tiga tahun,Kami sedang bebaring diluar rumah ,suara ITU menuruh Kami menandang Mata Hari ,Kamu ikut .Dan bila Mata Hari ITU beedar selepas ,Kami menang dapat kalahkan Mata Hari ITU.(kaseh 3tahun)
I like Phil. I liked that he was speculative of arguments and example given by Hijab because it helps a layman like me who at times has hard time following the conversation. This should also have been done in greater podium like in a university 🧠
Phill clearly felt in what Francis Beikan said once: "little knowledge of scienced makes you an Atheist, indept knowledge of science makes you a Believer in God." "القليل من العلم يجعلك ملحدا، و الدراسة المعمقة له تجعلك مؤمنا بالله". Many Atheists nowadays are thinking they are the smartest and already learned most of the available knowledge... May Almighty Allah (sw) guide all of us to his straight path...
TRUE HEART. YOU ARE SURELY KIDDING YOURSELF...? I'M IMPARTIAL, BALANCED, WITH NO AXE TO GRIND!. PHIL IS A 100% GOOSE. MUHAMMAD HIJAB RAN RINGS AROUND HIM AT EVERY TURN. YOU'VE GOT TO BE BIASED AGAINST ISLAM. THIS IS YOUR MISFORTUNE!.
After watching this it’s quite clear that Phil is all over the place, it’s like asking someone to drain water and he keeps dumping water on top of water The contengency argument which bro Hijab was using has nothing to do with space-time curvature or whatever the heck Phil was talking about, it’s a simple argument using mortal logic but Phil just wants to score meaningless points by bringing up things which are no need to the discussion May Allah guide him and bless brother Hijab
Hijab is an idiot with no competence in either philosophy or science. 70% of philosophers and 80% of elite scientists are atheist. So why would anyone care what Hijab thinks, particularly when he believes in the childish nonsense in the Quran, which these arguments having nothing to do with.
Matt In your post you just committed a genetic fallacy Made a statement with no proof, and got that statement wrong 67% of the last noble prize winners have been believers in God, and philosophy is flooded with theists, You should really star to pick up books and read and stop making foolish statements, moreover hypothetically speaking what if 99% are atheists that’s still a genetic fallacy And this isn’t what Hijab thinks, the guy actually goes to uni and studies this stuff, this isn’t stuff that he made up, secondly he’s in touch with many high end philosophers such as Rasmussen And you said these argument have nothing to do with Islam, well guess what these arguments were made by Muslims, read Al Ghazali read Ibn Sina and read Ibn Taymiyyah May Allah guide you
Mohammad Hdieb Is it possible that this universe was made by just a simple smart alien from another dimension? If so, why believe in religion is it is at best a hypothesis?
Phil's point about ambiguity was relevant, particularly because it showed that what you call "a simple argument" is a simplistic argument, which fails to take into account certain possibilities.
I don’t know but ur wrong! ‘This is atheist’ what’s 1x1x1= Christian : 3 Atheism: 0 but I don’t know but anyone who answers it is wrong but they could be right but i don’t know I didn’t say that Islam: 1 Hindu : 1000s The choice is yours...
Giant Muslim got schooled. That was hard to watch at times. This is a classic demonstration of an actual intellectual vs a self taught layman. The Muslim was quite rude at times.
well that's not what happened at all,the guy was misunderstanding the claims that hijab was making and every time hijab gets him in a corner he tries to change the subject or straw man hijab's argument
@@a_t_l7031 and another person would say they are both wrong and ignorant. It’s all about a matter of perception and where you stand from the beginning. I personally don’t care about these types of conversations any longer, I’m on a spiritual journey to find inner peace. Good luck on yours 💚
In probability theory: What is the probability of a perfect coin being a head or tail? Probability theory: just 1. Phil: less than 1. Probability theory: why? Phil: Their is some possibility of third option. Probability theory: what? Phil: wait for it... AMBIGUITY :) anyways nice discussion. and thanks ali.
Phil cannot get his head around the axiomatic nature of the laws of physics and the universe. By his logic, nothing should exist because of "aMbIgUiTy." Unfortunately for him, we can observe that the universe itself is well defined in terms of its laws. Asking why to something that is necessary or axiomatic is illogical and fallacious in itself.
@@faznaz7455 What was the necessary or axiomatic thing to which Phil asked why? He didn't just claim ambiguity as an option as a cop-out; he took time to justify it, giving a relevant example.
@@thejoin4687 Because asking why to fundamental aspects of the nature of the universe leads to a paradox where you can justify that nothing exists. But yet we can observe that some things do indeed exist which is a contradiction therefore asking why to something that has always existed can de duduced to be a logical fallacy.
@@thejoin4687 Oh this wasn't in reference to the original comment above, it was rather to when he questioned Hijab about it. His example is flawed because of the paradox i mentioned if you assume that he is correct.
Yo this talk is amazing and mashallah, but I am lost in all these big words lol wallah i had to google most of these theories and analogies so this actually took 4 hours to watch hahahah
Theist - convinced that a god exists Atheist - unconvinced a god exists Agnostic Atheist - do not know, unconvinced Gnostic Atheist - claim knowledge, unconvinced
Why does this guy keep inserting scientific postulations in a purely philosophical discussion? Space time curvature and whatever the heck he was talking about is irrelevant to the discussion.
Even if it were a "purely philosophical discussion" it fails to demonstrate a need for a deity, at best the argument if we grant it tells you need a necessary thing, not a necessary being , or a deity , or Allah. Also Philosophy failing to address about what we know scientific understandings relevant to the context is just hot air, you can't create reality by offering a sound argument( and this one offered by Hijab is not, ironically , necessarily sound ).
@@tdsdave The argument from contingency postulated by our classical scholars shows that the necessary existence IS our basic definition of a "God". Can you prove me wrong on that?
@@tdsdave seems like you dont understand your own position. from what ever perspective, if your answer is "i dont know", you cant have any opinion let alone reject anything. you have no right what so ever to do so. why? simply because you dont have any argument to begin with. what argument/s can you extract from "i dont know"? what proof? you maybe disagree, but to reject or refute, you need basis argument/s and you must start it from "you know" something instead of "i dont know" which have no basis what so ever.
@The Rodthanks for your reply You're right to say God is an intelligent being, you'd also be right to say that God is Most Merciful, you'd also be right to say he is the Most Loving. We're simply postulating that a necessary being i.e an independent, eternal being which brought everything into existence, which is singular, which everything depends upon and it depends nothing, is enough of a position to exonerate one from atheism. Can you explain to me why a deity MUST be conscious? We can easily argue for the existence of consciousness in a deity but that's a seperate argument so I won't make that injection. However, your claim that consciousness is a composite of constituent parts is a postulation I don't agree with. You only say so because you're presupposing naturalism, when in fact if you told me that consciousness is physical ∴ divisible, I would disagree with you and you have no reason to say I'm wrong in that, so you've given me a moot point.
Hijab claimed that brute facts and necessary things are the same and I asked him for a reference for that. He said he couldn't provide it there and then, so I shall wait for a reply here. But I think he is just plain wrong because a brute fact is something that has no explanation and a necessary fact is something that is explained by itself. So the two are conflicting with each other. If you think about it the concept of necessity is derived from the Principle of Sufficient Reason which states everything has a reason. A brute fact by definition doesnt have a reason. For more read here: www2.bc.edu/daniel-j-mckaughan/assets/mckaughan%2C-daniel-(2013)-brute-fact---new-catholic-encyclopedia.pdf
Hi Phill! I have to say you've done a great job as usually, I'd like to show you my summary of this debate, especially regarding my 3rd point, which is definitely the biggest issue with postulating a god as NE existence, it fails by theistic very own principle of sufficient reason. 1. Phill was right and Hijab was wrong regarding the distinction between the neccessary existence and the brute fact. The two are definitely very different things. Brute facts simply don't have an explenation, while neccessary existence has an explenation inside itself, i.e it's self explanatory. 2. Hijab doesn't know the difference between poisoning the well and straw man. On one instance, he was claiming that Phill is poisoning the well for refuting the information Hijab didn't bring. 3. Proof by assertion. Hijab simply claimed that neccessary existence is god because that's what Qur'an says. It's also an important point that Hijab was destroying the debate with his ridiculous definitions and concepts. He was conveniently ignoring the most important attribute of god which is consciousness/intelligence/will and that's what makes all the difference. But I'd say that Hijab is familiar with all the problems regarding God's attribute of consciousness/intelligence and that's why he tries to avoid it. According to his OWN words, things which are DIVISIBLE are contingent. The only consciousness/intelligence we know is composite and thus divisible and contingent. What he has to do in that case is to assert the existence/attribute of God's non-composite consciousness/intelligence which is going to be the biggest unproven assertion in history and that's ofc going to be rejected by everyone for exactly that reason. 4. Hijab is absolutely clueless on what atheists do and can believe. He claims that any concept of NE refutes atheism. That's just laughably wrong. Atheists aren't "aneccessary existence believers," there's nothing inherently wrong for an atheist believing that there's some NE, what atheists can't do, however is to accept god as neccessary existence, they're also justified in saying " I don't know" since that as well keeps them the default position of atheism. It's ludacris to say that atheists can't believe in an eternal most fundamental nature of existence, absolutely nothing analytically allows you to make such a claim.
@@seiddzekovic4189 yes very good, I notice he hasn't come in to defend himself, very telling. I especially like your point about conscious being being divisible. Nice.
@@PhilHalper1 why universe isn't a brute fact 👇👇👇 Imagine you were walking in your local park and you saw a hovering green ball in the middle of the children’s playground. How would you react? Would you walk by and accept it as a necessary part of the playground? Of course not; you would question why it exists and how it is the way that it is. Now, extend the ball to the size of a universe. The question still remains: Why does the ball exist and why is it the way that it is? Hence, the validity of questioning why the universe is the way that it is. Furthermore, this contention is absurd because it undermines science itself. Within the scientific community is a field of study dedicated to trying to explain the existence and basic features of the universe. This field is called cosmology. This is a perfectly legitimate field of scientific enquiry, and to label the universe as a ‘brute fact’ does a disservice to an established scientific practice. i am waiting for your reply Phil
36.58 how can phil be arguing that he wants a quote for the fact that Bertrand russel said that the existence of the "universe is a brute fact".its just another man's assertion.
In reply to battery pack he just threw some random scientific terms and repeated them again and again to to confuse audiences! I knew this guy he has remembered many scientific term every time you have some arguments he will say i dont agree its not like this and start throwing scientific terms ! Its useless to talk him
Just because you didn't understand them doesn't make it 'random'. These are incredibly complicated concepts that can't just be summarized by talking about battery packs
Philly made a silly low iQ logical fallacy.. He said the fact that dark matter cannot be put under a microscope does not infer dark matter doesn't exist which is a little hypocritical
To sum up the debate: 1. Phill was right and Hijab was wrong regarding the distinction between the neccessary existence and the brute fact. The two are definitely very different things. Brute facts simply don't have an explenation, while neccessary existence has an explenation inside itself, i.e it's self explanatory. 2. Hijab doesn't know the difference between poisoning the well and straw man. On one instance, he was claiming that Phill is poisoning the well for refuting the information Hijab didn't bring. 3. Proof by assertion. Hijab simply claimed that neccessary existence is god because that's what Qur'an says. It's also an important point that Hijab was destroying the debate with his ridiculous definitions and concepts. He was conveniently ignoring the most important attribute of god which is consciousness/intelligence/will and that's what makes all the difference. But I'd say that Hijab is familiar with all the problems regarding God's attribute of consciousness/intelligence and that's why he tries to avoid it. According to his OWN words, things which are DIVISIBLE are contingent. The only consciousness/intelligence we know is composite and thus divisible and contingent. What he has to do in that case is to assert the existence/attribute of God's non-composite consciousness/intelligence which is going to be the biggest unproven assertion in history and that's ofc going to be rejected by everyone for exactly that reason. 4. Hijab is absolutely clueless on what atheists do and can believe. He claims that any concept of NE refutes atheism. That's just laughably wrong. Atheists aren't "aneccessary existence believers," there's nothing inherently wrong for an atheist believing that there's some NE, what atheists can't do, however is to accept god as neccessary existence, they're also justified in saying " I don't know" since that as well keeps them the default position of atheism. It's ludacris to say that atheists can't believe in an eternal most fundamental nature of existence, absolutely nothing analytically allows you to make such a claim.
so do you mean atheism and theism at least agree each other the premise "there is something neccessary existence", whatever theism and atheism call it?
@@hanifsoul First of all, you can't compare religions with atheism. Atheism is only a position regarding the existence of god, atheism has absolutely nothing to do with any other matters. Atheists can hold different epistemologies, different moral philosophies... The only thing atheist has to do is to not believe in a god. Then second, if you're asking me personally, what I believe, I'd say I don't know if those concepts have to do much with reality, but what I do know 4 sure is that you cannot postulate god as NE for the reasons I cited above.
"We don't understand something. We need something to explain this thing we don't understand. God explains all things. Therefore, God can explain this thing. Therefore, God is necessary!"
Omg.... That woman in the beginning of the video trying to interrupt is the same woman that was cussing at the prophet and got slapped in another video 😯
Is he actually smart. I find the intelligent muslims are actually better than atheists on these types of clips.(and I'm very far from a sunni muslim) Edit: i think phil is in fact smart. And both are having an intelligent exchange
@@MrExtraloco yeah you are right. I feel so alone, and my imam is cohersing me to die in Jihad, because the moon god Lah, can't kill people himself. If you loved the God Of Abraham, you wouldn't want to hurt his creation. That is from Satan. Jesus is the Messiah. He will be your best legal defence on judgement day.
@@MrExtraloco Jesus kills the antichrist, not your prophet. Jesus can raise people from the dead, not your prophet. Jesus was born of a virgin birth, not your prophet. Jesus will forgive the sin of the world, not your prophet. Why do I want a prophet in my life when I have God, who created me? Al-Islam is dying. It is rotten to the core. The more people see the horrific systemic problems with your Haddiths, the more you have to lie (Taquia) and cover it up. REPENT AND TRUST ALONE IN JESUS.
you can not ignore the symmetry in the universe !! all of the phenomenon explored in the universe are comprehend upon the symmetry , you can have +1 and -1 out of zero but still you need a cause to make that happen such as gravity.
Phill attacking an argument Mohammad never made. Hijab in this or any other conversation in recent memory did NOT make any argument for a loving, omniscient God who answers prayers. Phill shows no willingness to engage in argument Mohammad is making. Atheists have destroyed Christian Ideas of personal God and assume that's the only understanding of GOD. Is that arrogance or ignorance?
You missed Phils point , typically gods are described with many attributes beyond a necessary thing to explain the universe, and only this necessary thing is what Hijab is arguing for. Phil is aware that if Hijab's argument worked and he showed such a necessary thing was needed nothing about that demands that it is a being , or that it merciful or any typical attributed god. Yeah Phil may have mentioned some attributes that the Christians use for their god, such as omni-benevolent or answers prayers, but that Allah is not attributed with these things does not mean Phils point would change. Btw Allah is described as omniscient, knows all. All these additional attributes are not needed if all you need is a necessary thing to be the source for contingent things, so Hijabs argument does not lead to any god , Allah or otherwise, it just leads, at best, to a need for a necessary thing, that could be anything that meets that requirement. You say "hows no willingness to engage in argument Mohammad is making" simply because Hijab is using a script and Phil recognises that the argument is full of holes, its not that his is not engaging its that he does not agree with points Mohammed wants to just pass over as if there is no issues with them, there are.
I've seen this guy in EFDawah, and he's a hardcore atheist. Meaning, he has no plans in believing in God anytime soon. Although he might make it seem like his problems lay in lack of scientific evidence for God, the real reason is the problem of evil. He has difficulty reconciling God with evil happening in the world. Maybe he exprienced something that made him bitter, maybe not, but as long as that problem is left unaddressed, he'd always remain uber-hyper-skeptical about God and will thwart any attempt of convincing him otherwise.
Sorry for being a little off topic but the electric universe theory where electromagnetism is the primary (scientifically speaking) force instead of gravity is the paradigm shift in astronomy and physics just now. The electric sun model has been demonstrated by the SAFIRE project (very interesting if you like that sort of thing). If the layman wants to bring things like red-shift and dark matter into discussions then they should be aware by now of the progress in electric universe theory which casts considerable doubt on theses mainstream theories.
Hijab is out of his depth with Phil and he hasn't learnt from his first encounter on 4 April 2017... Phil is well informed and Hijab isn't and his debate tactics and stream rolling doesn't fool any critical thinking and closely scrutinising person...
In what way is hijab out of his depth , phil is more knowledgable scientifically no doubt because thats part of his field, and not part of hijabs of which he has admitted in this vide.o hijab argues from a philosophical perspective which he narrowed down to 3 logical options , in which in the end phil had to resort to some sort of non meaning ambigious way , iv seen this comment in a previous video from you , seems biased to me.
There is no place for that Hatun Lady here please don't get her on your cameras, I can tell that no one wants to see that lady on any of the videos, that fired lady can't even stay in any logical and academic conversations like this whatsoever ALHAMDULILLAH FOR HIS GUIDANCE AND MERCY.
Not smart, but contentious and quarrelsome. You could bring anything, and whatever it is wouldn't be evidence for him. What he considers evidence, is what the people he "trusts" says, that is why they say that belief is trust. So if the people he mentioned thinks that the universe is eternal, that would mean that they never left the former theory called the steady state theory. He's a ad-dahriyya. He seems nice, but such have hearts like stones. Abu Ja`far Ar-Razi said that Al-'Ala' bin Al-Musayyib bin Rafi` narrated from Abu Ishaq that Abu Al-Ahwas رحمهم الله said that 'Abdullah رضي الله ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ عنه said: "Eemaan is to trust.''. 'Ali bin Abi Talhah رحمه الله reported that Ibn 'Abbas رضي الله ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ عنهما said, ﴾ يُؤْمِنُونَ﴿ "Who have Faith." [Al-Baqarah 2:3] Means they trust. [Tafsir Ibn Kathir] So if some of the people he mentioned said something, he would accept it as evidence, hence why he asked you to name his people. What Hijaab didn't notice is that the debate was all about who or whom defines what evidence is. To him it is the materialists. The entire world around him is the evidence. For example, asking him whether the phone was created or not? Meaning, would he accept that it was created? And from thereon ask him how he thinks the earth came into being? And then ask him if he accepts that same process he mentioned would be able to bring about the phone? If he denies it for the phone but accepts it for something more complex like the earth, that's a contradiction on his part, and a rejection. Atheists told me that inanimate atoms smashed together by chance and random events until the earth came to being thereby. So I said, could a spaceship containing the atmosphere and environment of the earth come into being with the same process, and they said no. And my argument was, you are contradicting your own process, by accepting it for something greater and complex, but denying it for something lesser and inferior. It is like you being able to lift 50 kilos, but not 1 kilo.
How can you suppose that you can put an individual electron in an orbit while you suggest that there are infinite numbers of electrons in the universe or if you suggest that the universe is infinite in time, you know that there is space-time now and each one affect on the other , or you suppose that there is something you do not know about it and it will be discovered latter so you put your brain in a " pause" statue for ever cause there is always something we do not know and it could be discovered
I love how the Hulk, backpedalls on the assumption that a faith can be classed as an evidence, which clearly is just an assumption based on theology, without any measurable scientific proof
@Abu Adam Islam is one of three Abrahamic religions, they are nothing more than that, just a religion. There are 4500 religions at the present moment on this planet. Let that sink in....
@Abu Adam ok, you know what Abu Adam, let's level the playing field and we give your assumption about Islam as a plausible deniability. If you can quote an exact scripture from your holly book about one specific thing in human past, if your answer is true I will convert to your belief system today. Tell me please what does your scripture say about an event which happened to earth and humanity 12.500 years ago. Give me a scripture in your book which has any mention or detail about this event. Please
Salam alaikum I just had a doubt or idk that came to me today : if the corruption of the book and the corruption of teachings were clearly indicating the falsehood of christianity, then why didnt the scholars and church fathers realise this for 600 years, why did they trust the bible and paul so much?
The comments section isn't a very good place to ask these questions since you don't know who is who and nobody is certain to have enough knowledge to answer these questions(not even me!).
they justified it and bent the teachings so they would meet their ideas. haven't you ever watched christians in debates? just watch Hashim's debates and you will see how they twist the meanings which are so obvious .some of those church fathers you are speaking about must be responsible for the corruption. who do you think made all the changes? not the lay men of course. those who went against Paul and those who had their own bibles were massacred. you only have the version that was chosen by certain people who went to extreme lengths to propagate their ideas and protect their gains .whom do you think Allah is talking about when He says:"Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby." 2-79
Phil seems he is learned about science but as soon as the options arise his hyperskepitcism comes to play....His 4th Option for any scenario may as well be ambiguity or as atheists always say I do not know
That a shame, Atheist doesn't care about Islamic Knowledge of God Attributes. The closest answer is there he just mention it, the law of Physics is actually the Attributes of God which is so called Fine Tuning.
Atheist: "There is no absolute certainty!" Question: "Are you absolutely certain that there is no absolute certainty?" Atheist: "Well. Let me rephrase it like this. The only certainty is uncertainty!" Question: "So isn't it certain that what you've just said is also uncertain?" Atheist: "Well, still we don't know. It's a fact. We should accept that" Let's go on discussions like this!
Science doesn't make absolute statements, so he was right. It just provides best explanations, based on the what we can experience and test. Theists don't provide for any absolute certainty either. They pretend to, but can't. If they could, they wouldn't raise weak arguments like Pascal's Wager. This is a thing I know I know, even though whether I will always claim to know I know this is a known unknown about what I know I know.
Brilliant discussion ^^ ... Phil did some straw-men, introducing the personal God into the discussion and everything that comes along with it and he also weasels out quite a bit but all good
He offers agnostic because Hijab et al use a weird definition of Atheist. You can be an atheist and agnostic at the same time btw, the labels are not incompatible.
@The Shadow " *i* referred to oxfords dictionary" You do not appear in the thread above ? So why are you trying to hold my feet to the fire of how you defined anything? Perhaps you have made a mistake posting here, or are now using a different account? Maybe your post is ghosted or deleted? Or you are hijab making reference to what you said in the video? Oxford dictionary defines atheist as "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods" This is a very common definition. So I have no idea where your "absolute disbelief...." definition comes from, and using "absolute" in such a definition makes me suspicious this is not actually a dictionary definition at all? Did you get it from some apologetics source making that claim this is the oxford definition, I know iERA has made such claims in the past. Feel free to give me a link if you have one to your oxford source for this definition.. For completeness the oxford dictionary offers agnostic as "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." Typically atheists ,at least those who actually are interested at all in discussions such as this and seek to use precision in their use of language, understand the definitions in the context of the philosophical subject Epistemology. In this context words like belief, and knowledge have specific meanings, and atheism and agnostic are used in the context of these meanings. In this sense saying I don't believe and I don't know are compatible, I *believe* X is false but I do not *know* that X is false with certitude. My point in my previous post was that to impose upon your interlocutor your definitions for their position labels(atheist, agnostic etc) and then to find fault with these given definitions is clearly an attempt to construct a strawman. An honest approach is to ask what people mean by the words they use. It says something quite damning that you can presume your interlocutor will attempt to strawman you from the outset, especially when the strawman itself is built upon disingenuous claims about what dictionary definitions really are. All the best.
The serial killer paradox is a really interesting one and a bit like the theory over whether we living in: - a simulation - or a simulation within a simulation - or a simulation within a simulation within a simulation How would you know where you are in that chain (deGrasse Tyson)?
I reached minute 17:18 , I am a computer engineer but this is too much for me to understand , still I admire how civilized this conversation is .
God bless you all.
They are defining terms, basically the whole time just so they both understand each other when M Hijab says the arguments. I’ll summarize for you, the atheist although very smart and informative was jumping the gun and making arguments for things Hijab never raised. So basically at every opportunity the atheist said a bunch of info which was irrelevant to what hijab was going to say but hijab continued to allow and grant him things cause it didn’t matter towards his actual argument and would interject when needed but also didn’t waste time on things cause it was a waste of time, and then let the atheist continue to ramble and led him to actually explain a part of the argument (hijab was gonna use) then hijab hit him with the full argument and basically showed the atheist that he himself showed that it’s impossible to be atheists and that he is now a desist/agnostic but mans couldn’t accept that. But didn’t have any other way out. He (the so called atheist) is definitely an agnostic/desist but just rejects it without a coherent argument. W for M Hijab.
@@rumi- You clearly weren't listening intently. Hijab was attempting to simply define something outside the universe (spaceless, timeless) and necessary. What theists typically do, as he did here, is also slip in the word "being" (i.e. god). They then leap from that conclusion to a personal god and from that conclusion to Allah. What the scientist quite rightly pointed out that you could reach a stopping point (a brute fact) or just say, well, the laws of physics are necessary. That's it. L for M Hijab.
He is a smart atheist who has an intelligent way of answering questions, which is commendable. But it is pretty evident that he is hyperskeptic about any topic he doesn't want to accept by providing options like uncertainty or ambiguity in a discussion. At the same, he is not applying that same level of skepticism on the evidences he brought up and is relying on them to counter anything he wishes to. No one can have productive discussions, if this is the attitude
*_"No one can have productive discussions"_* Anything truly productive beyond debate would require science.
Explaining things away because they don't fit your belief about the universe is not science.
So what you're saying is he must believe in Allah to have a productive argument...THAT'S EXACTLY what you are saying...ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID OR SOMETHING!
Phil seems like a nice guy, may Allah guide him to Islam
@AGENT OF KARMA Quran means that which is recited ahahahaha you cannot harm the unseen recitation of the glorious Quran ahahahaha you have iQ of zero
checkmate
@AGENT OF KARMA come to Islam bruv it's high iQ and stop eating pork . bacon has been scientifically proven to harm the brain
@barry williams text is not Quran .text is text you clown
@AGENT OF KARMA what does that mean other than reflecting your poor character, lack of manners,and weakness? grow up .
it's so funny when islamophobic make an immature irrational comments and become childish and silly ,
it shows how irrational and unreasonable they are and the lack of capability to have a proper intellectual discussions
X: What is 1+1?
Phil: 2
X: Can it be any other than 2?
Phil: Yes.
X: What is it?
Phil: An ambiguous option I cannot tell
X: Ok. Take care..
1+1 equal 10 in the binural system so that was a bad example
@@hamimitabta7465 binural? is that even a word? 1+1 in binary system does not equal ten it is one zero which is a representation of 2
@@hamimitabta7465 reading your comment i burnt my engineering certificate. Thanx for educating us.
Did you really just conflate the origin of the universe to '1+1' 😭😂
@@redsox7897 first , my english is not so good , i made a little mistake my french is better
secondly ten is just a
nomenclature that we are using in the
decimal system , which everyone use but it still one zero
so 1+9 equal one zero in the
decimal system
1+7 equal one zero in the octal system
1+ f equal one zeo in the
hexadecimal system
so 1+1 = 2 is not a logic , it's a
convention
MashAllah brother Hijab has made strides since a couple of years ago, I remember watching him debate Phil 2-3 years ago and one can definetly tell bro Hijab has been gaining knowledge ever since MashAllah and May Allah bless him and allow him to continue to be a leader of this ummah
Ameen
Really?..this agnostic destroyed basically God. And Islam. But your to thick to understand because of your bias.
He's been gaining height, I'll give him that. His demeanour has improved too - there's been debates and interactions with Cosmic Sceptic and Apus where he's been deceitful and, at times, a complete c**k.
A very interesting discussion between two intellects. So much better to watch than vitriolic words thrown out between religions. We must keep interacting.
Not to question your moral values, but why did you take a picture with a man who is a perpetual liar, incites and has been documented to incite violence against innocent Muslims , and has been used as a key motivator in these attacks.
dimmy dunk
Finsbury Park mosque attack, attacker read tommy Robinson’s material a few days before the attack.
dimmy dunk
Don’t know what God ur referring to there but I don’t worship such a God.
How can a God be a warlord???? We believe God’s domain is outside of this universe???
“Giant Muslim” what a title MashaAllah 😂
Ami Khan It should have said Muslim with a giant ego.
@@janereacher3069 Considering that Hijab actually listens to the people he argues with, instead of using cheap juvenile attempts like butting in when the other person is explaining their argument, I'd say he doesn't have a big ego. But you do you.
Southpaw He doesn’t listen to people. I’m guessing that you have never actually been in his presence because if you had you wouldn’t have made such a stupid comment
@QATHAM IBN SHAITAN u kinda bad at trolling ngl
@@southpaw9041 yeah like hamza. Also butts in he does very deceiving tactical man.
Omg....brother hijab where you been?!!!! Ma sha Allah nice to see you back in the park.😍 May Allah strengthen all the brothers in their dawah work Ameen. #salam#Alidawah#mohammedhijab.
Imam-Al-Shafii once said “I have never once debated an ignorance person but lost”
Phil asking for page numbers and asserting things but when Hijab does it he isn’t allowed, double standards of Phil
The Rod
There’s a difference between an individual part and a whole my friend you just committed a fallacy of composition
If a whole movement is constantly getting destroyed then there’s something wrong with the movement itself, and by you admitting atheists always lose then that should sound alarms for your worldview
But if one ignorant amongst a dominant movement loses than that can be credited to that one ignorant and not the whole movement
Secondly your presupposing atheism equates to rationality, I don’t want to commit a fallacy but some of the smartest people in history have been theists
I can't help but agree with Phil here. Showing a necessary thing doesn't mean it is a being called God.
what the necessary thing called is not the point
the point is that there is a necessary being/existence, the uncause causer,
The Creator, The All Mighty,The Maker,The Originator,The Initiator,The Absolute Truth,
The Self-Subsisting,The Unique, The Only One,The Self Exalted,The Self-Sufficient
The Ever-Living,The Sustainer, ,The Supreme, The Majestic
@@_eLf45 Okay, but a non-"being" originator is not a God. God has a will, thought, intention, etc. Allah forgive me if I misuse any words here.
@@OriginalAndroidPhone
Totality agree , most of these arguments ( like Hijabs ) attempt to establish things like a first cause , a necessary thing , but even if we say the argument succeeds it does not mean that the only candidate to be the thing ( e.g. first cause ) can only be a deity.
Phil: "If I don't know I what it is, I don't agree with you for the sake of weaselling out a potential point." An expert hyperskeptic who doesn't even know he himself exists.
He does know. Why have you made such a stupid comment?
Hypersceptic for not believing something he doesnt know? If you truly think that, I have to say your way of thinking about this makes no sense to me.
Imam Ghazali was a hyperskeptic
Exactly my thoughts, Phillip is acting out
This was actually a really good debate; I learned several things about both side's arguments.
Ultimately it was an appeal to a reasonable conclusion vs. an appeal to a reasonable doubt.
"I don't know"
...right, then seek to find out!
Insha'Allah he is guided.
How do you think god created the universe?
@@thejoin4687 if you try to understand what God may be capable of if it existed and the properties and power that he should have to "create the universe then you will understand that's not that big of a deal for such an entity and the Quran explains it if you're interested
I immediately thought of at least three leading contemperory cosmologists: Alan Guth, Arvin Borde, Alex Vilenkin. All of them say that even if we postulate a Multiverse we face the problem of a cosmis beginning. Bold statements from the little atheist.
He said himself that he doesn't know how the universe began bro
Saying there is a problem physicists recognize is not saying the conclusion must be there is a beginning. There are other ideas out there , Penrose for example offers Conformal Cyclic Cosmology this is infinite into the past, Richard Gott suggests the universe created itself , that there is a temporal quantum fluctuation within the universe that leads to a first cause. Loads more ideas. I don't even think all proponents of what you suggest demand a necessary beginning.
He is on fist name basis with all of them. Skydivephil look it up.
Salaam, any updates on SALAM dining? I would love to be part of it! 😃
if there are laws of physics,who is the law maker? simple end to the debate.ALLAHU AKBAR
Being agnostic of the reality will eventually deplete you in your conquest for knowledge, the stalling of ambiguity and not going with certain rationale will lead to you eventually hindering the fact of certain realities, a reality you may not have been familiar with.
You're joking, right? The very act of saying 'I don't know' is what entices scientists to try and answer questions. Religion, on the other hand, claims to have all the answers already.
@@XiagraBalls the more you learn the less you know .
for the idea of min 32:40
if i understood correctly that particles go back in time (circulation of time)
"Note that, regardless of whether the particle travels
forward or backward in time in our quantum field
theory calculation, particles we observe in the
laboratory always travel forward in time".
source: Schumm, B. A. (2004). Deep down things: The breathtaking beauty of
particle physics. JHU Press.
so just to tell you that the guy is everywhere he doesn't have one certain assertion
he goes from on idea to another and he doesn't know where he stands
as for hawking idea min 33:00 is just a mathematical idea it is not an experimental one he ven put an imaginary time
robert sheldon criticisme him
that his theory "has no basis in physics and reality"
source: Was Stephen Hawking (1942-2018) right to object to the Kalam cosmological argument
again he has no certainty but still he wanna inform us like there is certainty
I don't care what they believe they're both pretty smart and I could listen to either for ages 😂
I really like brother Hijab May Allah swt bless him and his family.
Sahand Mahmoud no logic in hem
Amin
Semasa Kami berusia tiga tahun,Kami sedang bebaring diluar rumah ,suara ITU menuruh Kami menandang Mata Hari ,Kamu ikut .Dan bila Mata Hari ITU beedar selepas ,Kami menang dapat kalahkan Mata Hari ITU.(kaseh 3tahun)
I like Phil.
I liked that he was speculative of arguments and example given by Hijab because it helps a layman like me who at times has hard time following the conversation.
This should also have been done in greater podium like in a university 🧠
Phil is quite arrogant.
May Allah guide Phil
And us all 🌍
Amin
Phill clearly felt in what Francis Beikan said once: "little knowledge of scienced makes you an Atheist, indept knowledge of science makes you a Believer in God."
"القليل من العلم يجعلك ملحدا، و الدراسة المعمقة له تجعلك مؤمنا بالله".
Many Atheists nowadays are thinking they are the smartest and already learned most of the available knowledge...
May Almighty Allah (sw) guide all of us to his straight path...
Honest and modest professionals tend to be atheist, the ignorant self educated tend to believe in a god.
Title is misleading, phil wasn't smart
🤣
ORRECT.
But Hijab is still a giant Muslim!
PHIL IS A KNUCKLEHEAD. AND A BONEHEAD.
TRUE HEART. YOU ARE SURELY KIDDING YOURSELF...? I'M IMPARTIAL, BALANCED, WITH NO AXE TO GRIND!. PHIL IS A 100% GOOSE. MUHAMMAD HIJAB RAN RINGS AROUND HIM AT EVERY TURN. YOU'VE GOT TO BE BIASED AGAINST ISLAM. THIS IS YOUR MISFORTUNE!.
Wallahi that lady is in every video , I reckon she’s lives in Hyde park
After watching this it’s quite clear that Phil is all over the place, it’s like asking someone to drain water and he keeps dumping water on top of water
The contengency argument which bro Hijab was using has nothing to do with space-time curvature or whatever the heck Phil was talking about, it’s a simple argument using mortal logic but Phil just wants to score meaningless points by bringing up things which are no need to the discussion
May Allah guide him and bless brother Hijab
Hijab is an idiot with no competence in either philosophy or science. 70% of philosophers and 80% of elite scientists are atheist. So why would anyone care what Hijab thinks, particularly when he believes in the childish nonsense in the Quran, which these arguments having nothing to do with.
Matt
In your post you just committed a genetic fallacy
Made a statement with no proof, and got that statement wrong
67% of the last noble prize winners have been believers in God, and philosophy is flooded with theists,
You should really star to pick up books and read and stop making foolish statements, moreover hypothetically speaking what if 99% are atheists that’s still a genetic fallacy
And this isn’t what Hijab thinks, the guy actually goes to uni and studies this stuff, this isn’t stuff that he made up, secondly he’s in touch with many high end philosophers such as Rasmussen
And you said these argument have nothing to do with Islam, well guess what these arguments were made by Muslims, read Al Ghazali read Ibn Sina and read Ibn Taymiyyah
May Allah guide you
@@mohammadhdiebi3249 I wouid
Mohammad Hdieb
Is it possible that this universe was made by just a simple smart alien from another dimension? If so, why believe in religion is it is at best a hypothesis?
Phil's point about ambiguity was relevant, particularly because it showed that what you call "a simple argument" is a simplistic argument, which fails to take into account certain possibilities.
I don’t know but ur wrong! ‘This is atheist’ what’s 1x1x1=
Christian : 3
Atheism: 0 but I don’t know but anyone who answers it is wrong but they could be right but i don’t know I didn’t say that
Islam: 1
Hindu : 1000s
The choice is yours...
1
1
Watching Phil back flip, reverse it and triverse it hurts my head more than hitting a brick wall!!!
I'd guess that you head hurts means Phil was wrong ...not. Some things are not trivial .
Giant Muslim got schooled. That was hard to watch at times. This is a classic demonstration of an actual intellectual vs a self taught layman. The Muslim was quite rude at times.
well that's not what happened at all,the guy was misunderstanding the claims that hijab was making and every time hijab gets him in a corner he tries to change the subject or straw man hijab's argument
@@a_t_l7031 and another person would say they are both wrong and ignorant. It’s all about a matter of perception and where you stand from the beginning. I personally don’t care about these types of conversations any longer, I’m on a spiritual journey to find inner peace. Good luck on yours 💚
May Allah bless you guys, for keep bringing amazing content, i truly learn a lot! :)
In probability theory:
What is the probability of a perfect coin being a head or tail?
Probability theory: just 1.
Phil: less than 1.
Probability theory: why?
Phil: Their is some possibility of third option.
Probability theory: what?
Phil: wait for it... AMBIGUITY :)
anyways nice discussion.
and thanks ali.
Phil cannot get his head around the axiomatic nature of the laws of physics and the universe. By his logic, nothing should exist because of "aMbIgUiTy." Unfortunately for him, we can observe that the universe itself is well defined in terms of its laws. Asking why to something that is necessary or axiomatic is illogical and fallacious in itself.
@@faznaz7455 What was the necessary or axiomatic thing to which Phil asked why? He didn't just claim ambiguity as an option as a cop-out; he took time to justify it, giving a relevant example.
@@thejoin4687 Because asking why to fundamental aspects of the nature of the universe leads to a paradox where you can justify that nothing exists. But yet we can observe that some things do indeed exist which is a contradiction therefore asking why to something that has always existed can de duduced to be a logical fallacy.
@@faznaz7455 Phil was answering, not asking.
@@thejoin4687 Oh this wasn't in reference to the original comment above, it was rather to when he questioned Hijab about it. His example is flawed because of the paradox i mentioned if you assume that he is correct.
Yo this talk is amazing and mashallah, but I am lost in all these big words lol wallah i had to google most of these theories and analogies so this actually took 4 hours to watch hahahah
Theist - convinced that a god exists
Atheist - unconvinced a god exists
Agnostic Atheist - do not know, unconvinced
Gnostic Atheist - claim knowledge, unconvinced
i love your works Salam and may Allah bless your good works of Dawah..
This isn't a debate thats what i like people can actually learn
At 1:06 Ali is like: for gods sake this lunatic woman is still talking lmao
Why does this guy keep inserting scientific postulations in a purely philosophical discussion? Space time curvature and whatever the heck he was talking about is irrelevant to the discussion.
he cant help it.
Even if it were a "purely philosophical discussion" it fails to demonstrate a need for a deity, at best the argument if we grant it tells you need a necessary thing, not a necessary being , or a deity , or Allah. Also Philosophy failing to address about what we know scientific understandings relevant to the context is just hot air, you can't create reality by offering a sound argument( and this one offered by Hijab is not, ironically , necessarily sound ).
@@tdsdave The argument from contingency postulated by our classical scholars shows that the necessary existence IS our basic definition of a "God".
Can you prove me wrong on that?
@@tdsdave
seems like you dont understand your own position.
from what ever perspective, if your answer is "i dont know", you cant have any opinion let alone reject anything. you have no right what so ever to do so.
why? simply because you dont have any argument to begin with. what argument/s can you extract from "i dont know"? what proof?
you maybe disagree, but to reject or refute, you need basis argument/s and you must start it from "you know" something instead of "i dont know" which have no basis what so ever.
@The Rodthanks for your reply
You're right to say God is an intelligent being, you'd also be right to say that God is Most Merciful, you'd also be right to say he is the Most Loving.
We're simply postulating that a necessary being i.e an independent, eternal being which brought everything into existence, which is singular, which everything depends upon and it depends nothing, is enough of a position to exonerate one from atheism. Can you explain to me why a deity MUST be conscious?
We can easily argue for the existence of consciousness in a deity but that's a seperate argument so I won't make that injection. However, your claim that consciousness is a composite of constituent parts is a postulation I don't agree with. You only say so because you're presupposing naturalism, when in fact if you told me that consciousness is physical ∴ divisible, I would disagree with you and you have no reason to say I'm wrong in that, so you've given me a moot point.
Hatun getting free education
Hijab claimed that brute facts and necessary things are the same and I asked him for a reference for that. He said he couldn't provide it there and then, so I shall wait for a reply here. But I think he is just plain wrong because a brute fact is something that has no explanation and a necessary fact is something that is explained by itself. So the two are conflicting with each other. If you think about it the concept of necessity is derived from the Principle of Sufficient Reason which states everything has a reason. A brute fact by definition doesnt have a reason. For more read here: www2.bc.edu/daniel-j-mckaughan/assets/mckaughan%2C-daniel-(2013)-brute-fact---new-catholic-encyclopedia.pdf
Hello phillip ..great arguments well done .. I appreciate all the great work in your awsome channel. Im an atheist (xmuslim) by the way 👏😎
@@az36zarz66 thanks
Hi Phill!
I have to say you've done a great job as usually, I'd like to show you my summary of this debate, especially regarding my 3rd point, which is definitely the biggest issue with postulating a god as NE existence, it fails by theistic very own principle of sufficient reason.
1. Phill was right and Hijab was wrong regarding the distinction between the neccessary existence and the brute fact.
The two are definitely very different things.
Brute facts simply don't have an explenation, while neccessary existence has an explenation inside itself, i.e it's self explanatory.
2. Hijab doesn't know the difference between poisoning the well and straw man.
On one instance, he was claiming that Phill is poisoning the well for refuting the information Hijab didn't bring.
3. Proof by assertion.
Hijab simply claimed that neccessary existence is god because that's what Qur'an says.
It's also an important point that Hijab was destroying the debate with his ridiculous definitions and concepts.
He was conveniently ignoring the most important attribute of god which is consciousness/intelligence/will and that's what makes all the difference.
But I'd say that Hijab is familiar with all the problems regarding God's attribute of consciousness/intelligence and that's why he tries to avoid it.
According to his OWN words, things which are DIVISIBLE are contingent.
The only consciousness/intelligence we know is composite and thus divisible and contingent.
What he has to do in that case is to assert the existence/attribute of God's non-composite consciousness/intelligence which is going to be the biggest unproven assertion in history and that's ofc going to be rejected by everyone for exactly that reason.
4. Hijab is absolutely clueless on what atheists do and can believe.
He claims that any concept of NE refutes atheism.
That's just laughably wrong.
Atheists aren't "aneccessary existence believers," there's nothing inherently wrong for an atheist believing that there's some NE, what atheists can't do, however is to accept god as neccessary existence, they're also justified in saying " I don't know" since that as well keeps them the default position of atheism.
It's ludacris to say that atheists can't believe in an eternal most fundamental nature of existence, absolutely nothing analytically allows you to make such a claim.
@@seiddzekovic4189 yes very good, I notice he hasn't come in to defend himself, very telling. I especially like your point about conscious being being divisible. Nice.
@@PhilHalper1 why universe isn't a brute fact 👇👇👇
Imagine you were walking in your local park and you saw a
hovering green ball in the middle of the children’s playground. How
would you react? Would you walk by and accept it as a necessary part
of the playground? Of course not; you would question why it exists
and how it is the way that it is. Now, extend the ball to the size of a
universe. The question still remains: Why does the ball exist and why
is it the way that it is? Hence, the validity of questioning why the
universe is the way that it is.
Furthermore, this contention is absurd because it undermines
science itself. Within the scientific community is a field of study
dedicated to trying to explain the existence and basic features of the
universe. This field is called cosmology. This is a perfectly legitimate
field of scientific enquiry, and to label the universe as a ‘brute fact’
does a disservice to an established scientific practice.
i am waiting for your reply Phil
36.58 how can phil be arguing that he wants a quote for the fact that Bertrand russel said that the existence of the "universe is a brute fact".its just another man's assertion.
10:40 damn i thought he was going to break into the big bang theory theme tune song
😂😂😂
In reply to battery pack he just threw some random scientific terms and repeated them again and again to to confuse audiences! I knew this guy he has remembered many scientific term every time you have some arguments he will say i dont agree its not like this and start throwing scientific terms ! Its useless to talk him
In English?
Just because you didn't understand them doesn't make it 'random'. These are incredibly complicated concepts that can't just be summarized by talking about battery packs
Philly made a silly low iQ logical fallacy.. He said the fact that dark matter cannot be put under a microscope does not infer dark matter doesn't exist which is a little hypocritical
Even a circle has to have a start point & time, and then be infinite.
Does it? We cant imagine it being any other way, but I can definitely imagine there being another way that we just don’t understand.
@@blanco7726 You can literally say that about anything. The circle itself has to be created unless you say its independent.
@@Kakeshii yes you can say that about anything. Doesnt mean its untrue. Not saying its true though, just an idea.
@@Kakeshii what I’m thinking about is some function of time that we may not understand for example.
To sum up the debate:
1. Phill was right and Hijab was wrong regarding the distinction between the neccessary existence and the brute fact.
The two are definitely very different things.
Brute facts simply don't have an explenation, while neccessary existence has an explenation inside itself, i.e it's self explanatory.
2. Hijab doesn't know the difference between poisoning the well and straw man.
On one instance, he was claiming that Phill is poisoning the well for refuting the information Hijab didn't bring.
3. Proof by assertion.
Hijab simply claimed that neccessary existence is god because that's what Qur'an says.
It's also an important point that Hijab was destroying the debate with his ridiculous definitions and concepts.
He was conveniently ignoring the most important attribute of god which is consciousness/intelligence/will and that's what makes all the difference.
But I'd say that Hijab is familiar with all the problems regarding God's attribute of consciousness/intelligence and that's why he tries to avoid it.
According to his OWN words, things which are DIVISIBLE are contingent.
The only consciousness/intelligence we know is composite and thus divisible and contingent.
What he has to do in that case is to assert the existence/attribute of God's non-composite consciousness/intelligence which is going to be the biggest unproven assertion in history and that's ofc going to be rejected by everyone for exactly that reason.
4. Hijab is absolutely clueless on what atheists do and can believe.
He claims that any concept of NE refutes atheism.
That's just laughably wrong.
Atheists aren't "aneccessary existence believers," there's nothing inherently wrong for an atheist believing that there's some NE, what atheists can't do, however is to accept god as neccessary existence, they're also justified in saying " I don't know" since that as well keeps them the default position of atheism.
It's ludacris to say that atheists can't believe in an eternal most fundamental nature of existence, absolutely nothing analytically allows you to make such a claim.
so do you mean atheism and theism at least agree each other the premise "there is something neccessary existence",
whatever theism and atheism call it?
@@hanifsoul First of all, you can't compare religions with atheism.
Atheism is only a position regarding the existence of god, atheism has absolutely nothing to do with any other matters.
Atheists can hold different epistemologies, different moral philosophies...
The only thing atheist has to do is to not believe in a god.
Then second, if you're asking me personally, what I believe, I'd say I don't know if those concepts have to do much with reality, but what I do know 4 sure is that you cannot postulate god as NE for the reasons I cited above.
@@seiddzekovic4189 I had to scroll quite far down to find the most rational observation in the comments. Well done and thank you!
Logic cannot be proved with atheistic
Religion
WE CALL HIM ALLAH AND THERE IS NOTHING LIKE HIM..............BRUTE FACT IS GOD....
Your right
@Al Cubz yeah but history doesnt suggest that.. we have evidence of people coming as messengers talking about God.
No proof of God
"We don't understand something. We need something to explain this thing we don't understand. God explains all things. Therefore, God can explain this thing. Therefore, God is necessary!"
All of your arguments you don't need God, when calamity happened, you'll search for Him.
It's ironic
Wow. This is honestly the best point I have ever read on UA-cam debate
Option 5, Phil may or may not physically be in SC. He's all over the place.
1 HOUR WITH HIJAB, YEEEES
Omg.... That woman in the beginning of the video trying to interrupt is the same woman that was cussing at the prophet and got slapped in another video 😯
*GIANT Muslim expert of Hebrew and Arabic language... ALLAH prays FOR not to the prophet and Elijah means god with us* lol
Is he actually smart. I find the intelligent muslims are actually better than atheists on these types of clips.(and I'm very far from a sunni muslim)
Edit: i think phil is in fact smart. And both are having an intelligent exchange
If you think that then you're dumb
Why does Qur'an 48:1-2 say muhammed sinned?
The real question is why are you so unhappy with your life?
@@MrExtraloco yeah you are right. I feel so alone, and my imam is cohersing me to die in Jihad, because the moon god Lah, can't kill people himself.
If you loved the God Of Abraham, you wouldn't want to hurt his creation. That is from Satan.
Jesus is the Messiah. He will be your best legal defence on judgement day.
@@MrExtraloco Jesus kills the antichrist, not your prophet.
Jesus can raise people from the dead, not your prophet.
Jesus was born of a virgin birth, not your prophet.
Jesus will forgive the sin of the world, not your prophet.
Why do I want a prophet in my life when I have God, who created me?
Al-Islam is dying. It is rotten to the core. The more people see the horrific systemic problems with your Haddiths, the more you have to lie (Taquia) and cover it up.
REPENT AND TRUST ALONE IN JESUS.
@Rener Oslo I know your game. Enjoy kissing your rock you racist moon god worshipper.
nice to see the atheist have a quran with him, it means he is interested.
@dimmy dunk
it is nice to see you interested in islam and muslims, maybe you'll earn something with all the time and energy you've invested.
Oh god, the crazy lady is here (at the start) 🙄
😂😂 i saw crazy woman( hatun)
I saw the crazy lady the whole video lol
@@adnoahmed6537 if you lower you're gaze you wouldn't have saw her
I don't know what I don't know argument. If you have an argument, then I don't know. The atheist argument.
you can not ignore the symmetry in the universe !! all of the phenomenon explored in the universe are comprehend upon the symmetry , you can have +1 and -1 out of zero but still you need a cause to make that happen such as gravity.
What is the cause of 3?
@@thejoin4687 i am just pointing to the energy and dark energy as scientists present.It is not a philosophical argument here . thank you
Why Shaytun always stalking brother Hijab
So anyone non Muslim is shaytan?
shaytun tash
Phill attacking an argument Mohammad never made. Hijab in this or any other conversation in recent memory did NOT make any argument for a loving, omniscient God who answers prayers.
Phill shows no willingness to engage in argument Mohammad is making. Atheists have destroyed Christian Ideas of personal God and assume that's the only understanding of GOD.
Is that arrogance or ignorance?
so true
You missed Phils point , typically gods are described with many attributes beyond a necessary thing to explain the universe, and only this necessary thing is what Hijab is arguing for. Phil is aware that if Hijab's argument worked and he showed such a necessary thing was needed nothing about that demands that it is a being , or that it merciful or any typical attributed god. Yeah Phil may have mentioned some attributes that the Christians use for their god, such as omni-benevolent or answers prayers, but that Allah is not attributed with these things does not mean Phils point would change. Btw Allah is described as omniscient, knows all. All these additional attributes are not needed if all you need is a necessary thing to be the source for contingent things, so Hijabs argument does not lead to any god , Allah or otherwise, it just leads, at best, to a need for a necessary thing, that could be anything that meets that requirement.
You say "hows no willingness to engage in argument Mohammad is making" simply because Hijab is using a script and Phil recognises that the argument is full of holes, its not that his is not engaging its that he does not agree with points Mohammed wants to just pass over as if there is no issues with them, there are.
@@tdsdave and hijab said your point at the end
But phil still didn t wanna accept it
@@abdulkader7104
Saying ~"you don't agree with me" is not a rebuttal.
@@tdsdave where did i say it was a rebuttal?
I've seen this guy in EFDawah, and he's a hardcore atheist. Meaning, he has no plans in believing in God anytime soon. Although he might make it seem like his problems lay in lack of scientific evidence for God, the real reason is the problem of evil. He has difficulty reconciling God with evil happening in the world. Maybe he exprienced something that made him bitter, maybe not, but as long as that problem is left unaddressed, he'd always remain uber-hyper-skeptical about God and will thwart any attempt of convincing him otherwise.
أحمد إبراهيم
Please convince us then ......
Oh, so you only believe in things that have evidence?
You're not answering my question ;)
Yeah, true. You asked me first, I didn't notice.
So you also have blind faith, because you believe in the laws of logic without evidence :)
God bless you.
did he just say the fourth option is ambiguous?
15:03 !!😂😂😆😆 Ali Dawah really killed it with that point!😂
Sorry for being a little off topic but the electric universe theory where electromagnetism is the primary (scientifically speaking) force instead of gravity is the paradigm shift in astronomy and physics just now. The electric sun model has been demonstrated by the SAFIRE project (very interesting if you like that sort of thing). If the layman wants to bring things like red-shift and dark matter into discussions then they should be aware by now of the progress in electric universe theory which casts considerable doubt on theses mainstream theories.
Wow, that's really interesting! Thanks for sharing.
Phil disagrees for the simple sake of disagreeing
@The Rod perhaps look up proof, you do not require evidence to prove something to be true
@The Rod you said Phil disagrees because of lack of evidence and I'm saying you do not need evidence to prove something to be true.
@The Rod you are the one that mentioned truths and evidence, I am telling you you don't need evidence for something to be true
@The Rod according to google, there are two ways to prove something to be true, firstly with evidence, and secondly with a reasoned argument.
@The Rod evidence as in empirical evidence. I told you to google, don't make up your definitions of things
Player #2 is a Taqiyya, Tawriya,Kitman & Muruna conman
Ali dawah : "Of god sake" 😂
Hijab is out of his depth with Phil and he hasn't learnt from his first encounter on 4 April 2017... Phil is well informed and Hijab isn't and his debate tactics and stream rolling doesn't fool any critical thinking and closely scrutinising person...
In what way is hijab out of his depth , phil is more knowledgable scientifically no doubt because thats part of his field, and not part of hijabs of which he has admitted in this vide.o hijab argues from a philosophical perspective
which he narrowed down to 3 logical options , in which in the end phil had to resort to some sort of non meaning ambigious way , iv seen this comment in a previous video from you , seems biased to me.
Very respectful discussion. Nice too see.
Honestly, I don’t think smart means what it used to mean.
At 38 minutes I’ve given up on the atheists nonsense with his never ending options
So what do you know about the universe. Hijab said he had evidence and the atheist constantly asked him what it is and wasn't answering him
There is no place for that Hatun Lady here please don't get her on your cameras, I can tell that no one wants to see that lady on any of the videos, that fired lady can't even stay in any logical and academic conversations like this whatsoever ALHAMDULILLAH FOR HIS GUIDANCE AND MERCY.
Not smart, but contentious and quarrelsome. You could bring anything, and whatever it is wouldn't be evidence for him. What he considers evidence, is what the people he "trusts" says, that is why they say that belief is trust. So if the people he mentioned thinks that the universe is eternal, that would mean that they never left the former theory called the steady state theory. He's a ad-dahriyya. He seems nice, but such have hearts like stones.
Abu Ja`far Ar-Razi said that Al-'Ala' bin Al-Musayyib bin Rafi` narrated from Abu Ishaq that Abu Al-Ahwas رحمهم الله said that 'Abdullah رضي الله ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ عنه said:
"Eemaan is to trust.''.
'Ali bin Abi Talhah رحمه الله reported that Ibn 'Abbas رضي الله ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ عنهما said,
﴾
يُؤْمِنُونَ﴿
"Who have Faith." [Al-Baqarah 2:3] Means they trust.
[Tafsir Ibn Kathir]
So if some of the people he mentioned said something, he would accept it as evidence, hence why he asked you to name his people.
What Hijaab didn't notice is that the debate was all about who or whom defines what evidence is. To him it is the materialists.
The entire world around him is the evidence. For example, asking him whether the phone was created or not? Meaning, would he accept that it was created? And from thereon ask him how he thinks the earth came into being? And then ask him if he accepts that same process he mentioned would be able to bring about the phone? If he denies it for the phone but accepts it for something more complex like the earth, that's a contradiction on his part, and a rejection. Atheists told me that inanimate atoms smashed together by chance and random events until the earth came to being thereby. So I said, could a spaceship containing the atmosphere and environment of the earth come into being with the same process, and they said no. And my argument was, you are contradicting your own process, by accepting it for something greater and complex, but denying it for something lesser and inferior. It is like you being able to lift 50 kilos, but not 1 kilo.
"Did you put sugar in it, ahh wallahi i forgot" bless him.
Phil is a nice guy but, he uses most bizarre evidence and theory's to refute things .
How can you suppose that you can put an individual electron in an orbit while you suggest that there are infinite numbers of electrons in the universe or if you suggest that the universe is infinite in time, you know that there is space-time now and each one affect on the other , or you suppose that there is something you do not know about it and it will be discovered latter so you put your brain in a " pause" statue for ever cause there is always something we do not know and it could be discovered
I love how the Hulk, backpedalls on the assumption that a faith can be classed as an evidence, which clearly is just an assumption based on theology, without any measurable scientific proof
He doesn't make an assumption based on faith. His assumption is based on his argument of the dependent and independent.
@Abu Adam faith is still a faith, it does not compare as a truth to the objective base reality.
@Abu Adam Islam is one of three Abrahamic religions, they are nothing more than that, just a religion. There are 4500 religions at the present moment on this planet. Let that sink in....
@Abu Adam ok, you know what Abu Adam, let's level the playing field and we give your assumption about Islam as a plausible deniability.
If you can quote an exact scripture from your holly book about one specific thing in human past, if your answer is true I will convert to your belief system today.
Tell me please what does your scripture say about an event which happened to earth and humanity 12.500 years ago. Give me a scripture in your book which has any mention or detail about this event. Please
Salam alaikum I just had a doubt or idk that came to me today : if the corruption of the book and the corruption of teachings were clearly indicating the falsehood of christianity, then why didnt the scholars and church fathers realise this for 600 years, why did they trust the bible and paul so much?
The comments section isn't a very good place to ask these questions since you don't know who is who and nobody is certain to have enough knowledge to answer these questions(not even me!).
they justified it and bent the teachings so they would meet their ideas. haven't you ever watched christians in debates? just watch Hashim's debates and you will see how they twist the meanings which are so obvious .some of those church fathers you are speaking about must be responsible for the corruption. who do you think made all the changes? not the lay men of course. those who went against Paul and those who had their own bibles were massacred. you only have the version that was chosen by certain people who went to extreme lengths to propagate their ideas and protect their gains .whom do you think Allah is talking about when He says:"Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby." 2-79
@@user-gj3jn6gg3p Agreed!
Phil seems he is learned about science but as soon as the options arise his hyperskepitcism comes to play....His 4th Option for any scenario may as well be ambiguity or as atheists always say I do not know
I have a 5th option:
More ambiguity than the 4th option.
The argument from contingent and necessary being is distinct from the cosmological argument.
These titles are too funny 😂😂
We live under the Firmament that separates the Waters below from the Waters Above
That a shame, Atheist doesn't care about Islamic Knowledge of God Attributes.
The closest answer is there he just mention it, the law of Physics is actually the Attributes of God which is so called Fine Tuning.
Ali's face when Hijab asked about the sugar
Atheist: "There is no absolute certainty!"
Question: "Are you absolutely certain that there is no absolute certainty?"
Atheist: "Well. Let me rephrase it like this. The only certainty is uncertainty!"
Question: "So isn't it certain that what you've just said is also uncertain?"
Atheist: "Well, still we don't know. It's a fact. We should accept that"
Let's go on discussions like this!
'There is no absolute certainty' What's the problem with this statement?
@GameSlack My first statement answers that for you. Why are you asking me again?
@GameSlack Obviously I'm not absolute certain am I? It's just my assertion
Science doesn't make absolute statements, so he was right. It just provides best explanations, based on the what we can experience and test.
Theists don't provide for any absolute certainty either. They pretend to, but can't. If they could, they wouldn't raise weak arguments like Pascal's Wager.
This is a thing I know I know, even though whether I will always claim to know I know this is a known unknown about what I know I know.
@@XiagraBalls Whatever you claimed is also not absolutely certain. So let's reject that too
Brilliant discussion ^^
... Phil did some straw-men, introducing the personal God into the discussion and everything that comes along with it and he also weasels out quite a bit but all good
Fourth option is ambiguous, Phill I think your silly
you're*
The fourth option is essentially saying "An explanation we haven't thought of yet, as we haven't taken into account certain ambiguities"
Phill is confuse about himself whether he is athiest or agnostic
He offers agnostic because Hijab et al use a weird definition of Atheist. You can be an atheist and agnostic at the same time btw, the labels are not incompatible.
@The Shadow
" *i* referred to oxfords dictionary"
You do not appear in the thread above ? So why are you trying to hold my feet to the fire of how you defined anything? Perhaps you have made a mistake posting here, or are now using a different account? Maybe your post is ghosted or deleted? Or you are hijab making reference to what you said in the video?
Oxford dictionary defines atheist as
"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"
This is a very common definition. So I have no idea where your "absolute disbelief...." definition comes from, and using "absolute" in such a definition makes me suspicious this is not actually a dictionary definition at all? Did you get it from some apologetics source making that claim this is the oxford definition, I know iERA has made such claims in the past. Feel free to give me a link if you have one to your oxford source for this definition..
For completeness the oxford dictionary offers agnostic as
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."
Typically atheists ,at least those who actually are interested at all in discussions such as this and seek to use precision in their use of language, understand the definitions in the context of the philosophical subject Epistemology. In this context words like belief, and knowledge have specific meanings, and atheism and agnostic are used in the context of these meanings. In this sense saying I don't believe and I don't know are compatible, I *believe* X is false but I do not *know* that X is false with certitude.
My point in my previous post was that to impose upon your interlocutor your definitions for their position labels(atheist, agnostic etc) and then to find fault with these given definitions is clearly an attempt to construct a strawman. An honest approach is to ask what people mean by the words they use. It says something quite damning that you can presume your interlocutor will attempt to strawman you from the outset, especially when the strawman itself is built upon disingenuous claims about what dictionary definitions really are.
All the best.
Hulk Vs Ant
Mashallah🤩
I miss those two brothers Hijabi and Ali ..Allaah be with you
I lost it when he asked him the page number
He's trying to conceptualize every word Muhammad uses. Idk how Muhammad endured that. I stopped at 26:37 to take a Tylenol.
The serial killer paradox is a really interesting one and a bit like the theory over whether we living in:
- a simulation
- or a simulation within a simulation
- or a simulation within a simulation within a simulation
How would you know where you are in that chain (deGrasse Tyson)?
Opening sentence blew my mind
Great discussion with very useful point of views! may Allah guide him to the true path.
Atheism?
Sorry?
@@hassanjarrar5545 The true path. That's atheism, right? Never mind. I'm an atheist. I was just messing with you.
@@XiagraBalls haha u wish, may allah guide you too I'd say💙
Hatun feel jealous not to shout on camera !
I can’t believe I watched the full video 🙉 😂 whole I was cleaning our kitchen
Hijab is neither a philosopher nor a physicist/cosmologist. He is so far out of his depth in these conversations it's laughable.