The Strongest Argument for the Existence of God

[@OnePathNetwork]

Full Destroying Doubts episode: onepathnetwork.com/the-contingency-argument-for-gods-existence/

[@Mafia_マフィア]

📜 Qur'an 52:35-36 : *﴾ Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]? ٣٥۝ Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain. ﴿* 📜 Quran 39:45 : *﴾ And when Allāh is mentioned alone, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter shrink with aversion, but when those other than Him are mentioned, immediately they rejoice. ﴿*

[@unclegardener]

@@Mafia_マフィア This is the best argument for the existence of Allah; it is much better than this weak contingency argument. To label ‘Ilm-ul-Kalām as strong is disrespectful to al-Qurān, let alone as the strongest argument.

[@absquereligione5409]

@@Mafia_マフィア Don’t worry, we are very certain. - Theists have never demonstrated that their preferred actually god exists. - All they have are speculations, assertions and gullibility (blind faith).

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

now delete the other embarrassing episode with the idiotic sheikh he did not know anything and simply gave rationality rules a chance to embarrass muslims.

[@absquereligione5409]

@@ILoveLuhaidan Correction. It is Muslims that are embarrassing Muslims.

[@sambuwalda1330]

It is so important to make these videos where you break down our religion step by step, and make it easy to understand for the broad audience. Especially in this age of time, where many people think religion is some sort of fairy tale for people that lost their hope. We have to spread awareness of the fact the islam is based on the truth. So please keep up the good work! ❤️☪️ May Allah guide those who are lost. Ameen. 🤲🏼

[@junodonatus4906]

It isn't based on truth but strong indoctrination with no exposure to outside thoughts or critique of the faith. Religious people FIRST believe, and AFTERWARDS compile evidence and reasoning using confirmation bias. Tell me I'm wrong!

[@KryptonKr]

I agree, we should spread this awareness. Education is the solution to ignorance

[@junodonatus4906]

@@KryptonKr Education usually squashes religion though.

[@KryptonKr]

@@junodonatus4906 Other religions than Islam yes.

[@junodonatus4906]

@@KryptonKr That's what they all say. Yet when science speaks you reinterpret what Islam says to fit that.

[@truthinknowledge8312]

May Allah swt reward brother Mohammed Hijab for empowering the youth and intellectually defending Islam.

[@Moath1277]

May Allah guide us and Hijab to the way of the Salaf

[@unclegardener]

@@Moath1277 Āmīn.

[@truthinknowledge8312]

@@Moath1277 in what way exactly does his views differ from the salaf?

[@Moath1277]

@@truthinknowledge8312 Dear brother, it is not the way of the prophets or the way of the Salaf to philosophize arguments for the existence of God. Using philosophy to prove God’s existence is exactly why the Salaf called Ahlul Kalaam deviants.

[@notyourhabibi6473]

@@Moath1277 🤦‍♂️

[@rahmaabdi7868]

Also thanks one path for the subtitles because I was struggling to understand for a minute but reading the subtitles made it a lot easier so jazakallahu for that ❤️❤️

[@rivaldioctora]

british accent..

[@themercifulguard3971]

BRI ISH

[@rahmaabdi7868]

@@rivaldioctora it’s not the accent that was hard to understand for me In fact I love the British accent it’s the high quality vocabulary he was using my vocabulary is very limited. But I’m not surprised at all know that I know he graduated from Oxford University mashallah.

[@rathernot6660]

@@rahmaabdi7868 atheism don't make sense. Don't worry it's not your English. The atheists use these words to make it seem they intelligent by not believing. Hijab just counters that more efficiently than most theists.

[@EarningwithAI-h7v]

Learn Hadith In English completely .Jazakullah

[@talksense6648]

ما شاء الله These are the videos which we need. Top quality, simplified which everyone can understand. 🌻

[@Jule-mm4dr]

I memtion how Quran recitation heals people. How Islamic exorcism (ruqyah) helps people. That's quite a proof in my opinion.

[@polite.cat.has.playlists]

Ohh yes!

[@maryamgg2481]

Yes sister thats so true. You know someone im my family has been suffering with jinn posession and wallahi sometimes when my dad recites on her when she has fainted the jinn screams and says no when we mention allah. He says no out of anger becuase it really hurts him. So seeing this all is the certainty of the eye Alhamdulillah allah has guided May he keep us steadfast

[@jb_4379]

@@maryamgg2481 Indeed, Allah azze we jelle really guides to Right Path whom ever He wills (if those want to accept the Truth with their hearts) and left in delusion and misguidance whom ever He wills ( if those dont want to accept the Thruth with their hearts).

[@ahmed-music-prod]

@@maryamgg2481 does that actually happen, maybe check if he has a mental disorder (not being rude just incase it could be the case)

[@nour.mp4]

@@jb_4379i believe it but i dont feel anything in my heart. What does this mean, i am devastated im afraid my heart is going blind

[@runit32]

this actually was Ibn Sina's argument for those who want to see further details about the subject

[@copkhan007]

Best argument for the existence of the creator is that I believe in the one and only creator Allah without any evidence or reference of his existence. No use arguing with the non-believers.

[@angeldust7591]

Background music distracting and unecessary.

[@ajustman7535]

Actually muhd hijab bro needs to reduce technicalities explain things in layman's terms it will reach even wider audiences

[@noorkhadim844]

Watch 'arguing God from being' by seyyed hossein nasr. Same argument, easier terms

[@ajustman7535]

@@noorkhadim844 i understood the concept also watched the Londoniyah series.. was referring it would help for for people with lesser understanding of concepts..

[@noorkhadim844]

@@ajustman7535 ah OK. Allah bless and reward you in these blessed days and nights, my brother

[@faz7814]

Agreed, it’s abit hard to follow

[@celestialsatheist1535]

If everything has a cause, except your god, you are committing a special pleading fallacy. You set a rule, only to exclude something from that rule, in order to have an argument. You also automatically destroy your argument, because if your god doesn’t have to have a cause, then you are admitting that some things can exist without having a cause. Now using Ockhams Razor (meaning that we should be searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements), we can eliminate the element of your god and simply say the universe was uncaused and existed eternally in some form. Logic 1 - Theism still 0

[@Mafia_マフィア]

📜 Qur'an 52:35-36 : *﴾ Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]? ٣٥۝ Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain. ﴿* 📜 Quran 39:45 : *﴾ And when Allāh is mentioned alone, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter shrink with aversion, but when those other than Him are mentioned, immediately they rejoice. ﴿*

[@RustyWalker]

_"Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?"_ Neither. That's a false dichotomy. Why does the Qu'ran have logical fallacies in it?

[@RustyWalker]

.. ant that's an argument from ignorance

[@BobTrikob-pr2ts]

​@@RustyWalkerby they the whole universe and Gods Creation so its saying did the Creation of God meaning the universe cause itself its shown in the video to br logical fallacy that you cant have infinite causes the Quran has a solid argument.

[@apurpose8614]

​@@RustyWalker How come that's logical fallacy There are only three possibilities Either we are created out of nothing (by itself) Or we created ourselves Or God created ourselves So God mentions the first two Third one is obvious if first two are false

[@RustyWalker]

@@BobTrikob-pr2ts It *isn't* a logical fallacy to have an infinite regress. It's just not intuitive to us as short-lived temporal beings. The video was wrong.

[@rahmaabdi7868]

I love Mohammed hijab very smart mashallah and the way he organises arguments and expresses them is beautiful ❤️❤️

[@lewis72]

He's the idiots' genius.

[@proslayer3233]

@@lewis72yeah sure, he doesn’t look like you.

[@lewis72]

@@proslayer3233 What he or I looks like is irrelevent. Mohammed Hijab is the idiots' genius. He sounds all loud and confident but when you scrutinise what he says, it's utter rubbish; as is most of islam.

[@chxsinlizzy]

@@lewis72 you said that. and then said absolutely nothing after. didnt elaborate on your statement. called the population of muslims idiots and then left. elaborate .

[@lewis72]

@@chxsinlizzy "you said that. and then said absolutely nothing after. didnt elaborate on your statement. called the population of muslims idiots and then left" - Now you know how non-muslims feel when they hear countless assertions from muslims.

[@faisalalabbasi969]

Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding. SURAH AL-IMRAN AYAT 190 (3:190 QURAN)

[@jb_4379]

And agnostics and atheists think that kind of verse and there are so many like those in the QUr'an, can be imagined and written by bunch of human primitive 7th century arabs!!????!?

[@cnault3244]

" in the creation of the heavens and the earth" You skipped the step where it is proved the heavens and the earth were created.

[@killerbee6484]

​@@cnault3244 then they came from nothing it doesn't make sense all the universe depends on God if God doesn't exist the universe would not exist

[@celestialsatheist1535]

If everything has a cause, except your god, you are committing a special pleading fallacy. You set a rule, only to exclude something from that rule, in order to have an argument. You also automatically destroy your argument, because if your god doesn’t have to have a cause, then you are admitting that some things can exist without having a cause. Now using Ockhams Razor (meaning that we should be searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements), we can eliminate the element of your god and simply say the universe was uncaused and existed eternally in some form. Logic 1 - Theism still 0

[@celestialsatheist1535]

​@@jb_4379well the creation account given in the Quran is completely wrong

[@BeastBoiz]

Thank you for these amazing videos ma’sha’allah keep up the good work!! 👍🏼

[@exa3909]

Please write Allah with a capital ♥️

[@George-iv1hi]

@@exa3909 why, it is pagan deity, nonexistent.

[@exa3909]

@@George-iv1hi search what word the arabic bible uses for God

[@irfangull1461]

May Allah guide and bless everyone

[@ea5307]

Ameen

[@zainabzuhasarafdeen4873]

Aameen aameen yarabbal aalameen

[@Rico-Suave_]

One version of this argument has a hidden conclusion in the premise, when they say “uncaused cause “ they are secretly meaning god, so the conclusion is hidden in the premise.

[@purplelove3666]

I wish thry didn't have music in the background

[@farahpocoyo5027]

Great job! Logical 💯

[@sohrab4497]

This is the problem with philosophy that Hijab is using, it's getting more and more complicated instead of making it simple

[@marcinlipski2228]

He is wrapped up in his own terminolgy that makes no sense to these outside his bubble

[@Rico-Suave_]

Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all in it 5:11

[@Rico-Suave_]

And it makes more sense for the independent thing to be the basic building blocks of matter and energy like quantum waves

[@ayeshayasir8665]

No. They are by DEFINITION contingent actually as their form VARIES and certain circumstances and factors DETERMINE their form. And their behavior is also dependant upon them.

[@ilm8865]

Brillant explanation brother

[@YourLordIsOne]

I advise you check Hadith 5590 in Sahih Al-Bukhari and it’s explanation + exceptions in regards to musical instruments’ prohibition may Allah bless you

[@fizaaal]

*The contingency argument posits that there cannot be an infinite chain of dependent things. *Dependency is distinct from causation, as dependent entities rely on something else for existence but don't necessarily cease to exist if the source is removed. *Independent entities are self-sufficient and are necessary for the existence of dependent ones. *While the argument doesn't directly prove specific attributes of God, it aims to move individuals from atheism or agnosticism to deism or theism. *Establishing a need-based relationship with the necessary existence leads to the recognition of submission and sets the stage for further arguments, including the authenticity of the Quran and the prophethood of Muhammad.

[@snuckel4]

Sometimes I say "innalilahi wa innalilahi rojiun" to non-muslim that has passed away, in fact, I always say it to everyone who has passed away. But, some muslim stopped me from saying it for them.. why?

[@MuhammadAhmed-lc1op]

You shouldn't believe everything a person or even multiple people say just because they say it

[@apurpose8614]

You cannot supplicate for disbelievers after they die Only while they are alive you can pray for their guidance

[@SigmaMale7868]

Great video and also I love school diaries please make more videos on school dairies😍

[@yusufdawood3018]

Been waiting for this collab for too long

[@AjejeB]

Even if one agreed with this logic, why would the “independent” thing be God? Makes much more sense that the independent thing is something akin to a quantum field or whatnot…

[@ItsMeSoloDolo]

What do you mean “if one agreed?” Majority of scientist believe that this a dependent universe and there must be something it depends on. What that independent variable is will always be argued upon.

[@AjejeB]

@@ItsMeSoloDolo sure, and my point is that the independent factor is more likely to be an abstract thing rather than an emotional human-like personal-god like Allah. It is evident from science that humans evolved like other animals and weren’t created from scratch by god. We are dependent on our ancestors, not god. We know life is dependent on nature, and we know that this world formed by gravitational accretion, wasn’t created on day 1 by God, it’s just dependent on stars, which are more powerful yet simpler than planets. Stars are then dependent on hidrogen, which again is more simpler. Eventually hydrogen is dependent on atoms, which depend on elementary particles, which are even simpler, till we go down to space itself and the individual forces of nature, etc… you see, as we god deep down the “dependent” chain we go down to more simpler and fundamental, abstract, albeit stronger things. So it’s unlikely that at the end of the chain all of a sudden there is a super powerful man with human emotions! The independent thing is more likely a fundamental space/time/waive sort of fabric/essence that we haven’t yet discovered (and maybe would never discover), but it makes no sense that is a man like creature.

[@musaaziri3568]

well, a quantum field is a limited existence, it is defined by it's limited propreties. now, it is more retional to argue that an independent being would not have arbitrarily limited propreties. and there would be also the problem of explaining the teleology required for the complexity necessary for life ( what is known as the fine tuning of the universe ) if you argue that such a field created the universe, then it would be a random process, but is it rational to argue that all the variables upon which life is contingent, just happen to be the right ones, randomlly? I mean, I don't have enough faith to believe something like this.

[@celestialsatheist1535]

If everything has a cause, except your god, you are committing a special pleading fallacy. You set a rule, only to exclude something from that rule, in order to have an argument. You also automatically destroy your argument, because if your god doesn’t have to have a cause, then you are admitting that some things can exist without having a cause. Now using Ockhams Razor (meaning that we should be searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements), we can eliminate the element of your god and simply say the universe was uncaused and existed eternally in some form. Logic 1 - Theism still 0

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

@@ItsMeSoloDolo Here is a philosophical critique of the contingency argument as summarized: The contingency argument aims to prove the existence of a necessary being (i.e. God) by arguing that the existence of contingent beings requires the existence of a necessary being. However, the argument makes several questionable assumptions: 1. The distinction between necessary and contingent beings is unclear. Defining necessary beings as "self-sufficient" and contingent beings as "dependent" is imprecise. Further work is needed to clearly define what makes a being "necessary" rather than just labeling God as such. 1. The impossibility of an infinite regress is asserted but not proven. The argument claims there cannot be an infinite chain of contingent/dependent beings, but does not give a reason why this is impossible. An actual proof is needed to establish this key premise. 1. The argument makes a questionable leap from an unspecified necessary being to the God of classical theism. Even if a necessary being is proven, it is a further step to conclude this being has all the traditional divine attributes. The argument does not bridge this gap. 1. The argument relies heavily on intuition and a priori philosophical reasoning rather than empirical evidence. Some may find pure logic insufficient for establishing something as significant as the existence of God. In summary, while the contingency argument is thought-provoking, it has some gaps that need shoring up. The key concepts need more clarity, the premises require further support, and the reasoning from a necessary being to God is a significant leap. Stronger arguments and empirical evidence may be needed to convince skeptics of God's existence.

[@Sporeta]

I'm gonna use this argument for not pay child support.

[@longjunior7638]

*Key questions* How do you know something is dependent? What if everything was just a rearrangement/changes of particles? How do you prove the fundamental particles cannot be necessary? Can you prove the necessary existence isn't a necessary thing but a necessary being?

[@MalekUiop]

1. Based on empirics 2. It’s not, bcs we have trailing present 3. If they are, then you are accepting their divinity, bcs if it wasn’t necessary for other changes to happen from it, but they happened - then they(fundamental particles) have free will(initiating smth when it’s not necessary), in other words u become deist(saying god is everything and in everything). 4. I have already explained that, it’s being bcs it has will - property of a soul or a living. What else?)

[@longjunior7638]

@@MalekUiop Perfect

[@ziadsolomon7117]

"There might be one history in which the moon is made of Roquefort cheese. But we have observed that the moon is not made of cheese, which is bad news for mice. Hence histories in which the moon is made of cheese do not contribute to the present state of our universe, though they might contribute to others. That might sound like science fiction, but it isn’t." Stephen Hawking "Indeed, God [Allah] holds the heavens and the earth, lest they cease. And if they should cease, no one could hold them [in place] after Him. Indeed, He is Forbearing and Forgiving." Quran 35:41 Induction indeed is the answer.

[@D3nchanter]

yeah the problem is even IF you accept it (which isn't needed)... you still don't get to a god, but just some necessary thing. its STILL a logical leap to just call that thing a god. just like it was a logical leap to invoke god in any other area of existence like thor and lightning used to be, the only difference is now its literally pushed back SO far, that its at the origin of the universe now instead of in everything like the wind and lightning.

[@uthman2281]

How so?

[@32Eratosthene51]

​@@uthman2281because the argument conclusion leads to *there is something that caused everything to exist*. It doesn't talk about its nature The conclusion doesn't say wether the independant being/thing is infinite is omnipotent,omniscient,omnibenevolent,has conscious, does currently exist etc... It is like saying something caused the house to burn. But when it comes to what causes it that different. It could be the nature, a person or just an accident

[@soulcalm17]

By definition, the necessary thing has attributes of no beginning and no ending. Meaning its entity is unchanged. So, it must be different with all contingency existences that always change. That's why it must not be matter. It is then entity with absolute power, ability to arrange (because producing matters that inter-dependent in contingency existences). Ability to arrange implied the intelligence, and of course will to arrange. So, this necessary existence is definitely alive. Entity that alive forever, has a will, intelligence.. can not other than we call it God.

[@marknieuweboer8099]

As a staunch atheist I begin to like you more and more. Before I could complain that the independent entity on which everything else depends is not necessarily a creator god you mention itself. So I'll give you a fun fact. Physicists have identified a few candidates. My current favourite is quantum fields. They can be said to be a manifestation of a creator god. And this is where the debates ends in a stalemate.

[@hamsam789]

Quantum fields do not have intelligence though… how can an unintelligent thing be the first cause?

[@MalekUiop]

Quantum fields just an attempt to not call it god, to say that it just “randomly” does it, when you for sure know that it doesn’t, universe isn’t a loop, the expansion continues to grow, that’s a rejection of Big Crunch theory. They just call it random, but the probability says different things

[@marknieuweboer8099]

@ Malek: you're not even wrong.

[@ayeshayasir8665]

quantum field can be considered contingent in the context of the contingency argument. Quantum fields are part of the natural world and are subject to various conditions, interactions, and probabilities. Their properties and behaviors depend on factors such as energy levels, particle interactions, and spacetime conditions. Therefore, quantum fields exhibit characteristics of contingency as they are not inherently necessary but contingent upon specific conditions and interactions within the universe.

[@marknieuweboer8099]

@ Ayes: they can be but don't need to be contingent. They set the conditions, interactions and probabilities. Energy levels, particle interactions and spacetime conditions depend on quantum fields.

[@talksense6648]

جزاكم الله خيرًا ❤️

[@ScarredRomeo]

Hijab is effectively distinguishing between the argument from causation and the argument from contingency. He explains aspects of the former by mentioning a type of causation, of which in Scholastic terminology there are two: an accidentally ordered series of causation and an essentially ordered series of causation. The example of the father and son is the former, where the son does not depend upon the existence of the father to cause his children. An example of the latter would be a locomotive pulling a bunch of carriages. The cause of motion in the latter is derived concurrently and only because of the existence of the former. Take away the locomotive and the motion eventually stops for the carriages. The contingency argument has to do with an infinite regress of contingently dependent existences being impossible because you’re always pushing off the explanation for the contingent existence. Therefore, there must be one necessary being that has started that chain of contingent existences. Now, the latter may not still exist and the contingency argument doesn’t prove that it does, but the argument from causation based on the aforementioned second type of causation (essential) argues that it does as all matter is effectively a composition of form and other levels of matter “all the way down” and so some being must be existing in the here and now maintaining such causal structural relationships at the fundamental level of material existence.

[@pegaferno4429]

Appreciate the explanation!

[@sebastianwilliams5060]

His analogy is garbage though. God is not a parent or a locomotive. He is according to theists an omnipotent omnibenevolent omnipresent omniscient god. A contradictory man-made concept.

[@ScarredRomeo]

@@sebastianwilliams5060All of the Omni-terms are plagued with contradictions. “If God is all powerful, can He create a rock that He cannot lift?” Assume two contradictory premises and it’ll result in a contradictory conclusion. None of those terms apply to God Who is the highest being in the hierarchy of being and the possessor of the highest forms of those attributes in such a way. As for the examples, they are analogies to explain the principles.

[@al-quran8349]

The issue with this argument,as shaykh al islam ibn taymiyyah explained, is that it proves Allah has names but no characteristics which is how some of deviants explained Allah. Allah has characteristics and names which suit.his majesty, this is a good way of proving God exists however with this argument you deny the characteristics of Allah. May Allah keep us away from Ilm al kalam and make us strong upon the Qur'an and sunnah only,ameen

[@unclegardener]

Someone pointed it out! 😎

[@mdabullais2114]

I believe when we give this argument we keep non Muslims in our mind in order to bring them closer to concept of God since they don’t believe in revelation but when a person testifies shahadah, he/she will get to know more about Allah and Tauheed with the help of revelation. We must differentiate between believing in Ilme kalam and using it sometimes for the sake of arguments. People who give Dawah they know it Alhamdulillah. May Allah keep us steadfast on deen.

[@aseeker2269]

Because it's a separate argument that requires a separate video, I think. It would be interesting to see how that would play out.

[@unclegardener]

@@mdabullais2114 Why can’t we prove the existence of Allah using the arguments from al-Qurān instead?

[@al-quran8349]

@@mdabullais2114 yeah I understand that using logic to prove the existence of God can be used as some scholars have said, but at a very minimum level. Kalaam is very dangerous and it can lead to kufr.

[@felreizmeshinca7459]

Truly, the paths towards God is with A LOT of knowledge. There many logical ways people came to understand, from simple logic to needing well-established arguments. No matter what it is, if a person is sincere, he will put his time into it.

[@lamis983]

It's like the beginning of the proof of Ibn Sina, Ibn Sina's proof is very interesting

[@thehauntedstream7206]

Prove the will of Allah, that is the main point. The necessary independent existence point is incomplete on it’s own.

[@razagamerofficial1859]

Well if we believe that independent necessary existance don't have will mean first cause than we will have to believe that universe is eternal because if cause is there than effect must be there like the cause of water freezing is temperature below 0c

[@soulcalm17]

Contingency existences are the prove of Allah's will

[@trapped-inlife1914]

my argument is: this sentence has a creator ,the creator of this sentence must know everything for this sentence to be true ,DOES HE?

[@derdadermenzi5294]

This was beautiful ! Easy to follow and comprehend.... ❤❤❤❤

[@George-iv1hi]

Because it is totally false and made for ignorant people like you.

[@serventofallah7355]

ﺍﻟﻠَّﻬُﻢَّ ﺻَﻞِّ ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﻣُﺤَﻤﺪٍﷺ,ﻭَﻋَﻠَﻰ ﺁﻝِ ﻣُﺤَﻤَّﺪٍﷺ

[@zaeemk8897]

Can someone explain 2:40 onwards? What was the point he made to transition from 'there being a necessary existence' to 'that necessary existence is Allah'?

[@lewis72]

Sleight of hand. AKA 'bollox'.

[@طالبالعلم-ت6ص]

I'd recommend a book called the Imam and the Atheist

[@WaveFunctionCollapsed]

Contingency argument is indisputable 🎉

[@hitman5782]

Oh, is it? "Nobody knows X therefore my god is real". Applause, what a great argument. And this childish nonsense makes which of the endless amounts of gods we humans invented any more real? I really don´t get it.

[@generalhenrystickmin]

​@@hitman5782what else would it be? A self sufficient being is classified as a god. Humans names for god do not matter

[@hitman5782]

@@generalhenrystickmin It´s not about names. Most gods are exclusive. Can you answer my question?

[@sebastianwilliams5060]

​@@generalhenrystickmin How do you know that out of the (at least) 18,000 gods in our history and the countless religions that Islam is the truth? 😂

[@rebeuoriginel]

@@sebastianwilliams5060 first of all there aren't 18 000 gods, second of al islam is the only true religion because if we put every scripture to test science, the qu'ran is the only one that would pass the test and other scriptures would fail

[@homtanks7259]

JazakAllahu khairan

[@yourstruly5706]

Tell me you read Ashari and Maturidhi works without telling me you read Ashari and Maturidhi works

[@stainxfalcon]

whats that

[@yourstruly5706]

@stainxfalcon books by Ulema explaining aqeeda of ahlus sunnah via reason. The intellect is the ultimate source of understanding, which is why it's universally accepted. There is a sect that goals logic and reasoning a biddah, even though Allah ta'ala uses the Qawaid in the Qur'an when he gives mithal.

[@christianmartinez8621]

Do you guys read the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible?

[@gabrielleangelica1977]

Read it was n Hebrew.

[@tedgrant2]

What is the strongest argument for the existence of my mother ? The reason I've asked that question is to illustrate a point. No argument could convince you that she exists.

[@se20se20]

Its quite a simple argument actually. You are the strongest argument that your mother exists/existed. No where in our reality do we observe humans being brought into existence without emerging from a female. So with that fact in mind your existence is proof your mother existed at some point during which you were born.

[@nt1905]

Allah (swt) is the most great of the world.

[@abuzaynab1805]

This “contingency argument” approach in dawah will at the most only make someone affirm a “dhat” or essence for Allah. Will it make someone a Muslim in and of itself? Nope. Will it make someone accept Muhammad ﷺ as the final Messenger for mankind? Nope. Will it make someone affirm tawheed for Allah in His right of worship and belief in His beautiful names and attributes? Nope. Is it the manner that Allah’s Messenger called to Islam ? Nope People will now say “oh but we’re dealing with the reality of atheism” . If you can accept that dawah is worship and Allah’s Messenger did not leave us without notifying us of anything that will benefit or harm our religion AND all details in the acceptable acts of worship you must then accept to call to the Quran and Sunnah FROM the Quran and Sunnah. This use of “kalam” or speculative theology was detested by the scholars of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jammah. Imām Ash-Shāfi’i (d. 204H) stated: “My judgment upon the people of rhetoric (Ahlul-Kalām) is that they should be beaten with palm branches, placed on the back of a camel and paraded among the people and it be announced: ‘This is the punishment for the one who abandons the Book and Sunnah and takes to Kalām (theological rhetoric).” (Al-Baghawi reported it in Sharhus-Sunnah, 1/218) These philosophical approaches to dawah will fail because Allah’s Messenger would have informed us of them if their was good in them. These philosophical arguments for Islam based on the aql (which is subjective from person to person) will falter under the most simple of shubahat and this is undeniable. And Allah and His Messenger know best

[@MohammedAlSharif2002]

Correct may Allah bless you.

[@OCEAN-fc9wl]

Correct

[@ibnadam9790]

Allahumma barik!

[@m.ahachani8573]

جزاكم الله خيرا

[@CloutFlow]

Should’ve added subtitles for those that can’t understand British accent.

[@DrWoofOfficial]

Turn on the KZbin subtitles

[@TebogoMotlhale]

why did you guys waste time trying to define the word "in-dependent" when the spelling of this word clearly FORCES us to negatively associate it with the word "dependent" because "in-dependent" is a word essentially and necessarily DERIVED from the word "dependent". You guys want to turn our heads "grey" with skewed definitions 🙄🙄🙄

[@NANOG-P8]

what would you say to non Muslims who say that you've claimed that god is independent without proof , what if the singularity that the universe originates from is independent , what if we're in a multiverse and the other universe that created us is independent .

[@amalegendoffortnite3861]

Ok but brother obviously even if there is a multi universe than who created the first universe in the multi universe? Obviously there must be a universe to create another universe and creating a multi universe so the question again is who created that first universe?

[@NANOG-P8]

the universe might be necessary. or maybe existence monism is true and the whole ( dot ) is the necessary being. existence monism : The dot is the only concrete thing. Everything else are abstractions of it itself. The dot abstractly duplicates itself (referring to Oppy's 'Branching Theory of Modality'), resulting in universals. These can also be called "Modes" (taken from Spinoza) or this is what I call "virtual parts".... they are all 'modes' of the One It duplicates itself by method of abstraction similar to how we can express "1" as "2-1" or "3-2", all meaning the same thing

[@wassimjaoui4441]

Then why would one say that we depend on God and not just caused by Him, which would apply that God doesn't necessarily exist **anymore** ? I don't see an argument for that in the video.

[@wassimjaoui4441]

I'd like an answer if possible to my first question first. And if we make that argument... And if we say that we depend on God and not caused by Him, why should we believe that God created us (caused us) ? And not something else (that also is necessary). For instance if my father raises a ball (*causing* a potential energy) and gives the ball to me, then the potential energy *depends* now on me (dropping the ball or holding it), but I didn't cause that energy.

[@FireinHair]

I love school diaries

[@tahaali2732]

I understand that contingency is different from causation. But I'm so familiar with the argument from causation and I want to be able to prove God's existence from contingency. So how do we prove that God needs to continue existing in order for the universe to exist?

[@ayeshayasir8665]

Lemme make it easy for you by giving you certain analogies which would be fundamentally helpful, get this. If someone says, raises an objection to causation, you would say okay fine. For the sake of arguement, let's agree to this, or even an INFINITE regress of universes, or a multiverse. Or the cosmos whatever, ETERNALITY OF SOMETHING. OR ITS INFINITUM DOES NOT UNDERNINE ITS "DEPENDANCY". How? Here is an analogy Let's say for the sake arguement. We have an eternal sun with its eternal or infinite sun rays. Are both eternal? Yes. Are the rays still DEPENDANT upon the sun? YES. Therefore. If the sun was not. It would not have been. And by this you could even argue CAUSATION on a priori grounds, but that's another discussion Another analogy. We have the eternal pillow with the eternal ball. Both are eternal? Yes. However THE INDENTATION UPON THE PILLOW FROM THE BALL IS STILL DEPENDANT UPON THE BALL BEING THERE. AND IS STILL CAUSES APRIORI ETERNALLY Also by definition. Energy and fundamental particles are also by DEFINITION contingent as they DEPEND UPON CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THEIR FORM. Or they VARY in form. Hope this was helpful!jazakallah.

[@M_J_TN]

Nicely elaborated ! Mashallah !

[@D3nchanter]

the rays of the sun is a pretty bad example, because the farther you are away... you can still receive light from that star, long after its death. even on earth if the sun vanished this instant, itd be 8 minutes before we stopped receiving sunlight. NEW rays can't exist without the sun, but you can still see stars long after they've died.

[@hermes112]

ok but over time it will eventually die out. which still meansits dependent.

[@ziyadshafeek]

well he means it is basic "dependancy". our life is dependent on earth, earth on sun and sun is dependent on the universe, laws of physics. Ultimately someone independent must be assumed as per this argument. this is my understanding

[@junodonatus4906]

Call "The Atheist Experience" and you'll get debunked immediately.

[@hitman5782]

No need to do that. Every theist can talk to literally every atheist and see his childish delusions debunked. That´s the problem theists have. You can´t talk an imaginary being into existence.

[@victor_rybin]

1:28 why do islamic apologists use arabic filler words, when they obviously don't think in arabic?😅 does it make them look like some shaikhs from Saudi Arabia, according to them and their audience?

[@WIPO.]

Lol he is from egypt and he speaks well arabic. Write mohamad hijab arabic and see for yourself. Also brother, what's with using arabic lr other languages if you still understand the whole meaning?

[@victor_rybin]

@@WIPO. he was born in England, and i don't think he thinks in arabic or even is fluent in it, which justifies using its filler words🤔. Ali Dawa also does it, and he's even worse at arabic. it's just a fetish for muslims

[@MahayarMuttaqin-fn9ko]

You don't know Muhammad Hijab. Lol

[@ahmadhaghighat1445]

i think in English all the time and im not native English speaker

[@hitman5782]

So the fact that NOBODY knows how the universe came into existence is somehow evidence for...which god again? One qustion: In all the history of mankind, literally every single time we humans haven´t known the answer to a question, there have always been people screaming "That was my god", what has this ever been good for?

[@anthonyesin7630]

Disprove Islam. Produce a verse like the Quran

[@bladexpower534]

But In Islam the necessary existence or being is God

[@EarningwithAI-h7v]

Learn Hadith In English completely .Jazakullah

[@ibn.hussain]

We don't need such arguments to give dawah.

[@7aemr]

is this the Prophetic means of Dawah? simple question.

[@ishmammohammadadnan1525]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bHq8fJKDaKZ2fqs

[@wanderingtraveler71]

No it’s not. This link is all the problems with the contingency argument

[@wanderingtraveler71]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qYrFqKJ6np5lfrs

[@oayysz8909]

Watch the entire video in the beginning he clearly mentions it's only for certain individuals for general masses they don't need such technicalities stick to basic arguments in Qur'an

[@kiranchudasama2724]

Ibn Sina

[@mzs9090]

Salam

[@samw2996]

This is literally the first cause argument in other words

[@dwsdd0851]

it’s not causation!!!! it’s dependency

[@DeconvertedMan]

hahaha if that is the strongest argument, I guess you have nothing much then. This argument is so broken.

[@purplearrow3790]

I’m an agnostic who struggles with god actually existing, and I didn’t really understand how what was said proves the existence of God. Am I missing something? I’d appreciate some help because I want to believe god exists but I need a logical base to believe.

[@uthman2281]

What do you mean by logical?

[@purplearrow3790]

@@uthman2281 proof, basically something that actually shows that god exists instead of being vague evidence that can be explained by a logical continuation of events unrelated to god.

[@uthman2281]

@@purplearrow3790 What do you mean by proof exactly? Can you show me an example of how you come to such conclusions that something is proven?

[@purplearrow3790]

@@uthman2281sure, due to observational evidence from cases such as Genie Wiley we understand that core language development takes place at 0-3 years old. There’s a lot of evidence that supports this conclusion from observable evidence to biological mechanics we can observe in the brain, there are cases of children learning unique languages as long as they are exposed to language from 0-3. To me this is evidence, if you like I can go find said evidence but it’s just a bunch of psychological structures that explain how children develop based on what we have observed.

[@uthman2281]

@@purplearrow3790 Did I understand you correctly? You consider something proven if it is observable?

[@wq5dz]

This is such a jump. I think Hijab is started to know it but not admit it just yet. He has too many followers. This is a weak argument. Very weak. Just because the universe couldn’t start by itself and is depending on something else doesn’t mean it has a to ‘God’. And theres no link. You can say you think it is, but you can’t know. You’re fooling yourself acting like it’s a fact. You can say you belief this is the case. But even then, there is very little reason to believe that is true at this modern day. Back in the day when we couldn’t explain anything fair play, but now we have answers for so much there’s little say ‘it must be God’.

[@philhart4849]

Those arguments have more holes in them than a Swiss cheese.

[@George-iv1hi]

What to expect from people thinking that the pedophile rapist and killer is the best human ever?

[@Avistyl]

@@George-iv1hi He didn’t rape anyone. Nor did he kill anyone outside of war and defence. And he married a physically and mentally mature woman

[@Avistyl]

Then point them out? Why bother commenting if you aren’t going to provide the mental work of giving actual arguments?

[@George-iv1hi]

@@Avistyl There is no sense to discuss with you when you can't see obvious flaws in those "arguments". You would not understand the explanations. Finish a primary school first and start using your brain.

[@Avistyl]

@@George-iv1hithis is just cope at this point. Give me something. You know, you have to explain your point when making one. That’s what you do in arguments, when making points. Now that you have made a point, you must explain, rather that positing meaningless and baseless ad hominems as a cop-out for elaborating. That, my friend, is stuff we learned in primary school. So, explain. How does the argument have holes?

[@scyldscefing3913]

Did I miss something? I heard assertion after assertion, but no real argument.

[@mittato2135]

Just because you've established that an independent thing exists doesn't say anything about the nature of the thing; it could be God or it could be mud for all you know

[@sammy-pg7bg]

ma cha Allah, qu’Allah vous récompense pour votre travail, est-ce qu’il est possible d’avoir les sous-titres en français, baarakAllahoufikum.

[@AanFileSatu]

Atomic interlocking system

[@marcinlipski2228]

Exactly the opposite, what u refer as dependant things can indeed come from drpendant things in neverending loop.

[@Moath1277]

Brothers, it is not the way of the prophets or the way of the Salaf to philosophize arguments for the existence of God. Using philosophy to prove God’s existence is exactly why the Salaf called Ahlul Kalaam deviants.

[@Moath1277]

@Ahmed Thank you dear brother. May Allah bless you too

[@wanderingtraveler71]

Glad to find like minded brothers that don’t like kalam. Share this link to expose the contingency arguments kzbin.info/www/bejne/qYrFqKJ6np5lfrs

[@oayysz8909]

You need to watch the entire video he done with Hijab he clearly states for the general masses he sticks to main Quranic arguments as for some individuals they require logical and reason arguments even Ibn taymiya mentions this hijab gave references so please don't entirely dismiss logical arguments

[@Moath1277]

@@oayysz8909 brother, please watch this series and you will know that Hijab is not correct on this matter kzbin.info/aero/PLX3yMQTyU8CUoAB0nMnisDCWFOny-zFsC

[@walid.Z]

Ibn Sina argument.

[@quranchannel4622]

Nice

[@naveedfarooq3155]

Wish you took the name of Ibn Sina

[@majmage]

Wrong, that argument is illogical nonsense. 1. It changes topics. (It doesn't even mention a god.) 2. Not every conceivable non-contingent thing would be a god. So the logic doesn't work if you changed the wording to mention a god. 3. Multiple non-contingent things might exist. 4. It's not guaranteed that infinite regress is impossible. After all we can simulate universes with different laws of physics than our own universe. This means beings in that universe cannot accurately guess how reality works outside their own universe, which means we can't just assume causality holds true beyond our universe (though I would concede this is maybe the only "rule" of a universe that might be truly universal -- universal in the "all of reality" sense, not just the _"our universe_ sense). So in conclusion, the argument he presented doesn't get us even remotely close to indicating a god's existence.

[@solivagant_x7]

Can someone explain to me again simply because there are some points that I didn't understand

[@AlwaysBeSkeptic]

He is saying infinity can't exit therefore eternity can't exit therefore god exists which is wrong on every level because there isn't any logical rules that prevents infinity from exciting you just can imagine it in your brain which doesn't mean that the explanation is unlogical

[@solivagant_x7]

@@AlwaysBeSkeptic the thing is that burhan al imkan (Avicenna's argument from contingency) accepts even an infinite set of things, and the thing is that it would still be contingent therefore it will need the necessary being to justify the existence of that infinite set of things.

[@AlwaysBeSkeptic]

@@solivagant_x7 no it could lead to eternal thing think exist outside of the universe and not nessery that eternal think is intelligent being.

[@solivagant_x7]

@@AlwaysBeSkeptic yes but eternal things doesn't mean necessary things. An eternal multiverse for example would still be contingent, do you want me to explain the argument better so you understand better ?

[@AlwaysBeSkeptic]

@@solivagant_x7 the whole concept of eternality ... Is to not have a cause ... And if you think eternality need to have cause too .. then god should have cause because the only way to say god exist with a cause is to say he is eternal ... + Just because everything you see have a cause doesn't mean everything should have a cause even if i agree the universe have a cause I don't see way the eternal thing that cause need to be intelligent.

[@RonvirBilkhu]

The initial postulate cannot be proved. Things could depend on things as infititum why not? Infinite singularities exist in the universe we know that from Black Holes.

[@hmzzrg5045]

The strongest argument for Allah comes from philosophy?? Really? Didn't know that was the Dawah the prophet ﷺ came with.

[@oayysz8909]

I think he should change the title to "the strongest logical argument" because clearly it is not the most powerful are mentioned in Qur'an

[@hmzzrg5045]

@Yk On then why did the prophet ﷺ preach to the people with something they initially didn't believe in?

[@oayysz8909]

@Yk On don't straw man I didn't say he should use the Qur'an to atheists to prove the Qur'an because the Qur'an sais so as that would be circular reasoning I said the strongest arguments are from the Qur'an and can be used regardless of source which doesn't have to be mentioned that's all. The title is a little misleading

[@killermoon635]

Many of these attributes (like will, mercy etc) are human-like attributes and those things depends on the brain (or exist because of brain). They don't exist independently

[@MalekUiop]

Well they do, bcs mercy is good, already given without material brain, will doesn’t necessitate brain also, bcs there is motion and direction of it = has to be will, once again the universe has history

[@MenderSlen579]

Which begs tbe question,why does a being that has no desires,wants,needs want us to worship him?

[@lilkurva180]

@@MenderSlen579 Prayer has been proven time and time again to help people out. Not only does it give them fulfillment it is an easy band aid on things such as depression. It fills a gap in which humans cannot normally fill. Hey I mean you can also drink yourself to death in replacement. But that doesn't seem very smart. However worshipping a higher being which soothes you and does no harm and takes little effort and time... makes quite a lot of sense.

[@MenderSlen579]

​@@lilkurva180 completely irrelevant answer but ill give you an e for effort.

[@lilkurva180]

You just asked why would it want us to worship it lol. If it knew best, and worship is good for us. Theres the answer@@MenderSlen579

[@rayeesabdulla1916]

I have a doubt. Universe as a whole is independent. there is no requirement of a necessary existance.

[@muneeb241]

Listen to ibne sina’s proof of God. It covers your point. Jazakallah.

[@solivagant_x7]

Foreword : We offer three definitions of contingency. While they complement each other, if something meets even one of these three definitions, it falls under the category of contingency. --- Contingency refers to anything that exists but could have not existed or could have been different without leading to logical absurdities. As a result, any contingent thing depends on something other than itself for its existence. The existence of a contingent thing has no more intrinsic value than its non-existence. Therefore, if its existence or non-existence has been favored, there must be a reason behind it. This raises the questions: Why does something exist rather than not exist? And why does it exist in this specific way and not differently? To be more direct, the universe, a cyclical universe, the multiverse, or any other cosmological theory are ontological sets, and every ontological set is contingent. Some atheists might attempt to refute this argument by claiming it involves a fallacy of composition. However, while the fallacy of composition applies in certain situations, it does not apply universally. Example 1: - A wall made of small stones must be small. → This is indeed a fallacy of composition. Example 2: - A wall without paint and made of red stones will necessarily be red. → Here, there is no fallacy of composition. In this case, an ontological set depends on its elements. And since its elements are contingent, they might not exist. But if the elements of a set cease to exist, the set itself no longer exists. To use the analogy of a wall: 1) A wall depends on its stones to exist. 2) These stones may or may not exist. 3) Thus, the wall may or may not exist. Therefore, not only is an ontological set dependent on its elements for existence, but the fact that it may or may not exist proves that all ontological sets are contingent. If the set is contingent, and its elements are as well, what explains the existence of the whole? And on a larger scale, what explains the entirety of contingent things? We mean by contingent whole the whole of all contingent things. Here, we are not concerned with determining the properties of this whole, as that is irrelevant to the argument. Whether this whole is finite or infinite, whether it is composed of eternal or non-eternal contingent things, does not change the fact that the totality of contingent things requires an ultimate reason for their existence. The explanation that justifies/explains and accounts for/furnishes the existence of the contingent whole cannot logically be contingent. Otherwise, this explanation would itself be part of the contingent whole, and an explanation would still be required for this contingent whole. This explanation also cannot be illogical, like a square circle, because then the contingent whole could not exist since the explanation itself, on which the contingent whole depends, would not exist. Therefore, this explanation must necessarily exist and cannot be different than it is, otherwise it would lead to logical impossibilities. This means that its existence is necessary, and so are its characteristics/attributes. Which is to say that, this explanation -referred to by some as the Necessary Being and by others as God- is necessarily knowledgeable, wise, powerful, capable, eternal, and independent (self-sufficient); otherwise, this would inevitably lead to logical contradictions. Finally, there cannot be a plurality of necessary beings. Indeed, suppose there were multiple necessary beings, say Being A and Being B. If Being A and Being B are two distinct beings, there must be something that differentiates them. However, difference implies contingency in atleast one of them. This means that one of the two beings could have been different from the other (which is the case in this scenario) and so there must logically be an explanation or reason behind it. In other words, if Being B is different from Being A, then Being B depends on an external condition that justifies its difference from Being A. But a being that can be different from what it is (specifically, different from Being A) and thus depends on a condition is nothing more than a contingent being. To further explore the contingency of the universe, here are some concrete examples within the cosmological perspective of the ontological argument from contingency: - The universe rests on indeterminate quantum mechanics, characterized by changes and modifications. - The universe itself does not have an intrinsically fundamental status compared to other possible worlds. - The universe is governed by fundamental laws and constants where their values can be altered without causing logical absurdities (e.g., the alpha constant).

[@rayeesabdulla1916]

@@solivagant_x7 I am not an expert in this. Hence there might be mistakes in my understanding. But I will be sure to go through your reply as carefully as possible. 1) The universe doesn't depend on anything for its existence. The particles , fields, or whatever u can think of might be dependent on each other, but the universe itself is independent. 2)Why does it exist or not exist? This question doesn't give any new knowledge because everything inside the universe we might be able to address this question. The cause-and-effect rule is only valid inside this universe. Also, we are restricted inside the universe, and hence we will never know why we exist. 3)Why this specific way? Of course, it could have been many other ways. It doesn't show anything. it could have been a statistical distribution and we are trapped in one outcome. who knows? 4) I couldn't gain any insight from your ontological set and its example. - What I understood is that you are demanding an ultimate reason. And then you place an answer - the non-contingent god. The problem is you are placing an answer that can never be known if this answer is true or not. When we look into this universe we know things depend on each other and all our thought experiments go and get stuck at the whole universe. So you are now creating again a god of the gap, questions which can never be answered. Because it exists outside of the universe. 5)Duality is a very clear idea to me. hence no reply 6) your cosmological points- * things inside the universe are guided by quantum mechanics. we dont what law does universe as a whole follows. hence it doesn't show that the universe as a whole is contingent. *second point i didnt understand *True. it can be. Also, think about the god described in religious textbooks. Let's take Allah. A god who punishes and does not punish is possible. why a punishing god. A god who directly communicates with his creations is possible or a god communicating through messengers. why through messengers. or a god who isn't involved in the daily lives of people is possible, but he does. why this specific kind of god. Such questions can always be asked about anything. Does that make them contingent? We can never know if a god exists or not if he is beyond the universe. It would be easier to find god through his creations, especially jinn (made of fire) very easy to find scientifically, and angels (made of light) also scientifically testable. or use other properties of god, like the god doesn't have time. I think free will and all-knowing timeless god is the most logical way to find god because it doesn't go to the realm of things that we will never know.

[@kanizfatima3447]

If I go around saying my computer created itself people would call me crazy so why assume otherwise for the whole universe ?

[@jtdubs828]

Computers don't come to be in nature we know how they are created lol only by humans you are making a horrible comparison

[@sucaadmaxamad1484]

​@@jtdubs828 it's more irrational to say universe come from nothing

[@jtdubs828]

@noor Maxamed well I don't think that there is a nothing lol that doesn't make sense. There had to have been something but we don't know what lt is

[@jtdubs828]

@AnaS Ahmad Cahn has absolutely nothing to do with complexity we know cellphones don't come from nature

[@jtdubs828]

@AnaS Ahmad Cahn you're saying you don't understand it so god made it. It's not a good argument and your comparison has been debunked forever

[@addtyu6176]

Why is there music in this? and why is there also pictures? DId the Salaf do this?

[@simonw.1223]

probably as they dont belief everything what the book says

[@adamdiallo7142]

Our prophet Muhammad Sallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam did NOT bring the contingency arguments and majority of Muslims did not accept Islam because of this argument. All humans believe in Allah naturally including the so called atheists.

[@Moath1277]

Even the Mushrikeen of Quraish believed in Allah. It is not the duty of the Daiee to propose theories to prove that God exists. That is NOT the way of the Sunnah

[@lentinnurman7144]

But this is a different time from the prophet and atheists still like to come up with this argument anyway in order to prove us theism, specifically Islam, wrong. I think Hijab is alright in making the contigency arguement, and he is still careful not to tread beyond ilm kalam. Had it still been the time of prophet, the signs that god existed would easily be brought to atheists through miracles.

[@Moath1277]

@@lentinnurman7144 Dear brother, I highly recommend you watch this series by Sheikh Abul Feda’ bin Massoud, as it demonstrates the errors in Hijab’s methodology, may Allah guide us all kzbin.info/aero/PLX3yMQTyU8CUoAB0nMnisDCWFOny-zFsC

[@archivejr]

@@lentinnurman7144 your existence is a miracle

[@MuhammadAhmed-lc1op]

@@lentinnurman7144 exactly, for example: the splitting of the moon

[@generichuman_]

Or maybe... reality is far more complex than these 2000 year old Aristotelian cause and effect arguments would have you believe. If the history of modern science has taught us anything, it's that philosophy done with arm chair logic about the fundamentals of reality... gets you the wrong answer.

[@George-iv1hi]

At the beginning the time itself was created. The law of cause and effect can not be applied when there is NO TIME, so the whole argument is WRONG.

[@OCEAN-fc9wl]

Absolute misguidance! So the supposed strongest argument for Allahs existence is something which is not found in Islam!

[@rebelgordo2339]

Big words and no argument on gods existents

[@farhanbutt3355]

Big words you don't understand 😂😂😂

[@erenmette]

What are laws of physics dependent on?

[@lightningbolt321]

He actually gets asked this in this discussion (maybe part 2 or 3 though): kzbin.info/www/bejne/aaLccqKboJahqq8

[@areebr6888]

Brother, im just wondering, doesn't the establishment of such arguments take away from the concept that that Islam is a clear message? Ie, you just need to look around you to see the design of Allah. Isn't it and shouldn't it already be obvious enough that there is a creator?

[@quasarsaad12344]

Islam is clear because anyone who observes the universe knows that a creator exists as long as they are not brainwashed, indoctrinated or lying to themselves, these are there to give the benefit of the doubt.

[@Fanboy1222]

We are indoctrinated not to think like that in the west they wanted to get rid of god in the head of the people

[@yeh2319]

why are you so sure thats only one creator? Why are you thinking it must be an omnipotent creator? Maybe its an Alien? Maybe we live in a computer simulation? Maybe there isnt really a God like Allah? Why are you so sure it must be Allah from the Quran?

[@adisinani]

people are just crazy

[@hishadmohammed]

The most complicated answer I have ever heard. Why don't they use Quran instead. Do they thing Quran doesn't have guidance for the whole humanity. Do we need something else? Surah At-Tur, Verse 35:36 أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators? أَمْ خَلَقُوا السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بَل لَّا يُوقِنُونَ Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no firm Belief. There was a big mountain in Dubai with a lot of trees on it. One day it just exploded, thus Burj Khaleefa (tallest building) was formed. What do you say about a person who tell you this? This is more easier to believe than to believe that earth, sun, moon, ocean, rivers, trees, animals etc came about from a random explosion. There is no creator. Above example is from logic out of necessity which any sane person can understand which is permissible. This is not the logic which is phylosophy. We don't need phylosophy to have this logic.

[@George-iv1hi]

Quran is for fools only and all those arguments are false and stupid showing their lack of intelligence.

[@charlievaughan1308]

""" I HAVE TO ADMIT AS A PHILOSOPHER YOU'D BE CRAZY TO BELIEVE ANYTHING OF ULTIMATE SIGNIFICANCE ON THE BASIS OF A PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMEMENT""". PETER VAN INWAGEN, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME.

[@killermoon635]

So you need to make many speculations/assumptions to believe in God ??

[@navedian739]

Healthy Clean living starts with👉🏻 heart & soul st👉🏻 then the body 🙏🏻O God guide us all to the True religion and Your Right Path, Amen🙏🏻Athentic Bible of Jesus is the one we should believe in, NOT the false one that's altered by people centuries ago that is in people's hands nowadays👉🏻isn't the real deal🙏🏻why don't people make a slight effort seek for the trurh🔎Guide your hearts 💕 Find out for yourself The ONE TRUE GOD, your CREATOR of the universe is GOD-ALLAH😇Read the Quran, the last chapter at least ❤️Much Love & Peace