A Sentient Singular Being | The Evidence Course | Session 2 / Part 5

[@ThoughtAdventurePodcast]

For more detailed discussion after watching the course video watch this stream on the same topic kzbin.info/www/bejne/p6Cwqq2Ng5drnas

[@ghas4151]

I am eternally grateful that Allah chose to create me when I was once nothing. What a blessing that is. Alhamdulilah!

[@sugoi9680]

@@hillarysemails1615 Sir... You can't apply the Laws of Thermodynamics to Allah

[@sugoi9680]

Moreover equal and opposite force is Newton's Third Law... If you are referring to the first law of Thermodynamics in that matter and energy cannot be destroyed then that still cannot be applied to Allah those are just rules based on the perceptions and abilities of humans at the current time, not the one who causes them.

[@davidlarsen1981]

You should be more grateful that your dad found your mother attractive enough to mate with her and make her pregnant. It's not a mirracle or a blessing (magical enchantment), happen's everyday bro. But sure.. it makes you feel very special that some magical skydaddy was working specific to create YOU... because YOU are special in his eyes, right? BWuahahaha

[@ghas4151]

@@davidlarsen1981 jog on mate…

[@sugoi9680]

@@davidlarsen1981 So the myriad physical processes that occurred during your conception really doesn't seem miraculous to you? Were you controlling your growth in the womb? So what if it happens everyday, how does that disprove anything?

[@Inkpot786]

Mashallah, really enjoying these sessions. Baarakallaahu fiykum

[@erTalhaKhan]

Beat series on argument for god on YT. Jazakallah khair to the entire team esp Sharief for his comprehension & explanatory skill.

[@osamak123]

SHARIF is a gem mashaAllah may Allah protect (fitn) and preserve him (faith) ameen

[@BenGali0]

Always beneficial 🤲🏽

[@mohamed9386]

Beautiful MashaAllah. Jazaak Allahu khair bro

[@fazalshaikh422]

That was absolutely remarkable Masha’Allah

[@nader9490]

One day I'll read the works of Imam Al-Ghazali for sure

[@md.fazlulhaque2808]

JazakAllah brother

[@ThoughtAdventurePodcast]

For more detailed discussion on oneness of the creator you can check out this stream too. kzbin.info/www/bejne/r36wcn2GpJyGpa8

[@zakariakhan7221]

Fantastic stuff jazakallah khayr bro sharif these videos are very helpful.

[@sisterfleur7523]

Can not believe I only found this channel now 😱 alhamdoulillah!!!

[@originalsource8952]

Once established there has to be something necessary then the next question is why & how has this necessary being created the universe. If this necessary being is an inanimate object then without any external influence it will just stay static. For this reason I believe that the necessary being was not an inanimate object but a being with consciousness to be able to will something.

[@Whatsisface4]

It depends on the properties of the stuff in question.

[@deiov]

@@Whatsisface4 thats quite vague

[@Whatsisface4]

@@deiov We just don't know why there is something rather than nothing. The poster I replied to, Original Source?, is saying far more than he is waranted to say.

[@freeman7983]

Masha ALLAH keep up the good work brothers!

[@mustafapk1516]

Guys don't entertain the atheist trolls in the comment section, They are simply straw manning and don't have any grounds to stand on. They are the sheep here, keep pondering and keep asking for guidance.

[@fikrmustaniiiir]

Very Good Video!!!!

[@jasjas3642]

I'm glad the atheists are engaging in the chat

[@matthewbardos4424]

Quantum fields and the cosmos are limited, finite, and dependent? Can you explain why and/or how you know this? 1:19.

[@billionburns]

If it would be infinite where and why is the cosmos expanding?

[@sugoi9680]

In the same way standard subatomic particles are limited and finite. Quantum fields are just a step down (or inside) from protons, electrons, or neutrons from my understanding.

[@matthewbardos4424]

@@billionburns no one knows the answer to either of those questions. All we do know is that we don't know, and therefore, neither does Shareef.

[@matthewbardos4424]

@tariq nazeem Why is any of that true? Aren't these just assertions? Maybe physical reality could have only been one way. How do you eliminate fatalism/determinism?

[@sugoi9680]

@@matthewbardos4424 For where and why the universe is expanding. Again just from my understanding it's not really expanding into anything because the universe I assume in this discussion is everything in existence. So how can everything in existence be infinite, especially if we take into consideration the singularity theory.

[@AnswerEasy]

Salam and BarakAllah fik! The only way for a necessary being to create a contingent existence rather than another (which is in fact related to the definiton of contingency) from an infinite set of abstract potentials is clearly that for the Creator to be intelligent and choosing with will some of those potentials and not others. Also this Creator originated things that only a Mind can create like other minds, symbols, teleology, artifacts, information and much much more. As for the 2 creators' critique, given that these would be necessary fundamentally their fundamental attributes would be necessary BUT if you have 2 creators they'd be distinguished by a fundamental attribute that is not shared hence this attribute is not necessary or both would have had it and thus both are contingent. If instead you claim that both "creators" have the same attributes then you're just doing semantics and you're actually talking about one Maker.

[@Oneummahgeneration]

@@hillarysemails1615 vast majority of experts have discovered that humans are necessary beings?

[@AnswerEasy]

@@hillarysemails1615 No man, not at all xD. Perhaps you should review the definiton of what contingent and necessary is or you wouldn't be asking what you asked. Human beings are contingent, they are finite, limited they could not exist or exist differently and so on and so forth. Allah, the Creator of existence, is Necessary and One as I described above.

[@islamthetruth9907]

Real question here, is God dependent on His will?

[@adamz8314]

too late for me

[@wazhuss3222]

Salams

[@Whatsisface4]

You have proven nothing of the sort. How do you know that the material universe isn't the bedrock of existence?

[@harryosbourne451]

They already dealt with that, mate.

[@Whatsisface4]

@@harryosbourne451 I don't think so. He is making logical arguments. Thing is, logic is only as good as the information you have to be logical with, and there is so much we don't know about why there is something rather than nothing. With this in mind, to say this has to be the way of it is at the very least, premature.

[@tifahefendijagaming9606]

Perhaps, one should consider the hard problem of consciousness and thus realize that an unconscious material universe cannot be the bedrock of existence. In order for there to be consciousness the original cause of everything or the bedrock of existence as you put it must itself be conscious. consciousness cannot emerge along the way from unconscious material proceses. After one establishes this no scientific theory can come about and disproove this "hard problem" since materialism assumes that consciousness is an emergent property of matter in the first place thereby begging the question.

[@Whatsisface4]

@@tifahefendijagaming9606 You haven't established that consciouness can't emerge from unconscious material processes.

[@tifahefendijagaming9606]

@@Whatsisface4 the brothers already talked about this exstensivley on one of their podcasts whit Hamza tzortzis. Feel free to watch. Its named "can consciousness be grounded on materialsm ? " where they DEDUCTIVLEY proof without a shadow of a doubt that it cant !

[@Ryba125]

Extremely uneducated guest, he ignore indeterminate causation, like nuclear decay. No cause but a random effect

[@bengreen171]

assertions are not proofs. And when you say incoherent things like "we know that an infinite regress has to have a beginning" shows that you cannot communicate these ideas comprehensively. And if you cannot communicate them - it probably means you don't really understand them. I find it typically inconsistent of your attempted 'intellectual' approach to apologism that you appeal to logic and science - but completely ignore these two worthy and rigorous fields when reading your Quran. You don't get to claim you trust either or hold either in any regard when you ignore the fact that the Quran makes scientific mistakes such as that in surah 41: 9 - 12. So the next time you refuse to engage with an argument because it's 'not logical - its emotional', remember that we canall see that logic doesn't mean a thing to you if it gets in the way of your narrative.

[@thesun5323]

the word is "yawm" . It can mean a 24 hour period OR an age, era, time or epoch. Plus this word is also used when referring to the Day of Judgement, which is not a 24 hour period, in fact it is a 50,000 year period. see 70:4

[@bengreen171]

@@thesun5323 it's not about the day. See my comment to K.

[@bengreen171]

@@thesun5323 It seems that for some reason my reply to K has been shadowbanned, so here it is for you. I didn't get a notification of your comment, so sorry for not replying. How do you know that an infinite regress must be impossible? And if you think there has to be a starting point - what was before the start? It's questions like those that the TAP guys fail to address, because they know that they are makig assertions purely because it conforms to the islamic worldview. Your assetion about miracles is question begging and wrong. I have read tafsir on the verses. You miss the point. It's not about the length of the day - although if you're not supposed to take that literally, then how can you take any of it literally? The real problem is the order of creation as described in the text. It's wrong.

[@ibnmuhammad886]

But an infinite regress isn’t possible? Anyway, I fail to see how surah 41 contradicts science?