Mohammed Hijab – Reacting to Desperate Atheist

			Go to quality dot app inshallah the app tracks versus pages and time spent reading. And the vs two
pages function takes you from reading a few verses a day to few pages a day, this project is for the
real enthusiasts. If there's enough of us out there, this will become the future of collapse and
support the project if you can't insha Allah, may Allah bless all of you. Does ocular care ceremony
slam Allah Kumara Mozilla here what I have to how are you guys doing? I've recently stumbled across
a video, which is entitled Why is there something rather than nothing? This question, of course, is
one of the most pervasive ones. And one was deep ones. And one was ultimate ones to use a call
		

			popperian term that plagues the human species. So I listened to what this person say and see. I
think he's coming from an atheist background, of course, how we can comment on some of his
conclusions.
		

			All right, so there's a kid out with his dad one day in the forest. And the kid says why the leaves
green. And his dad who's a botanist, or a tree surgeon or something says well, because of
chlorophyll. chlorophyll is green and leaves chlorophyll in them. And the kid says, haha, and they
walk a little more. And the kid says the wise chlorophyll green. And Father says, well, light
bounces off things differently. Sometimes, if chlorophyll is a certain density below a bar or
something, so it's green. And the kid says, okay, and they work a bit more in the kitces. But what's
like work life balance, and the dad says Jesus Christ, because that's how physics works. And the kid
		

			says, but why does physics work? Like the dad says, because that's how the universe was set up. 13
billion years ago, when time and space began? Are Aristotle, living alone already here have a
sandwich Shut up. And the kidding sandwich, he looks about a bit, and they walk a bit more in the
sun's going down and heading back to the car. And the kid says then why did time and space?
		

			And that is a pretty good question. Everything has a beginning, however weird or wonderful. They
weren't always planets, or stars or galaxies. Everything had to come from something did not? Well,
sure it is. That's a billion years ago with all the universe just appeared. And it was very simple.
Just atoms and the molecules and chemistry and stars and then planets and then ecosystems. And then
curious suns and irritative find this quite a bit later. But how did it all start?
		

			There's two answers here and see everything even came out of nothing for no reason at all, or
everything has always been around, well, forever. But both options are absolutely mandatory. And one
of them has to be true. That's a false dichotomy. It's not the case that either everything came from
nothing or that everything was just there. There is of course,
		

			another option, which you have quietly and cheekily
		

			circumnavigated, haven't you, which is that for every dependent thing composed of parts, there is a
composer, putting it all the way. Everything made of pieces.
		

			Everything made of pieces is dependent. The universe is made of pieces, and therefore the universe
is dependent.
		

			Of course, if it's dependent, it can either be dependent on something which is dependent or
dependent on something which is independent. If it's dependent on something which is independent,
then the job has been done. In fact, we have been able to establish the existence of an independent
entity through which all other entities depend on. And if it's dependent on something which is
dependent, then you have a series of dependent things, and such a series will be made up of its
constituent parts. And everything made up of constituent parts is composed of a series of such
multiverses, if you want to put in that language would be composed
		

			would be made up of parts and therefore such a series would be composed. So it's incontrovertible
Actually, it's inescapable my friend
		

			instead of postulating something which is actually nonsensical, which is that the universe came from
nothing. Something which even the ancients didn't dare utter from their mouths,
		

			in the ancient period and Hellenistic period, and up until the Enlightenment period, you have
postulated it.
		

			You can't prove that on a priori or a poster or a grounds. You can't prove that cosmologically at
all. In fact, it's impossible mathematically so why even mentioned it as an option. And in fact, the
Quran, the book that you should read, I would say once you finished eating the Pot Noodle dinner
that you have
		

			Maybe not recession in the cellar,
		

			watching some illicit stuff or whatever it is that
		

			atheists do to, quite frankly, or people that don't believe in God.
		

			Quite frankly, people that do believe God does well, you know, after you've done what you need to
do, and you're maybe understanding, then start contemplating this question properly. Why is there
something rather than nothing? It's not that, oh, it's it could be from nothing. And that's actually
a possibility, that's an impossibility. And if you're saying that while the universe was always
here, even that population itself doesn't solve the problem. Because was it here inexplicably,
		

			it didn't give preponderance to itself.
		

			Indeed, one could say that even if that were the case, and it was here, inexplicably, inexplicably,
what was it dependent on? Once again, the question that will plague you?
		

			It wasn't dependent or independent. Think about it.
		

			And if it was dependent, was it dependent on something that was dependent? Or was it dependent on
something that was independent, if it was independent, if it's dependent on something that's
independent, the job is done. There's something that's independent, if it's dependent on something
which is dependent that we make the same argument, as we have before. So your dichotomy a false
dichotomy may work on your chums and friends will not work on me.
		

			Other answers that will not win the cash prize include one, God did it? Yeah, well, well, we won't
win the cash prize, but I'll tell you what, won't win the cash prize, okay? Is your explanation that
nothing which is defined as the absence of something can in any way, shape or form? Even
conceivably, I'm not saying that you said that it can but it conceivably bring about something. You
think that's gonna win the cash price? So you can go get yourself another Pot Noodle?
		

			And eat that Pot Noodle Monte Carlo to I don't care. Yes, you do. The stuff we made over 13 billion
years old to you should give a damn. Or three. Maybe we just too stupid to work it out. Which is
what everyone says God before someone works something out. So everything came from nothing, or
everything has always been around. Well, which one makes more sense? Okay, then, let's say
everything came from nothing. So there's nothing and for no reason at all. The universe just well
appears well weird stuff happens in the world all the time for nothing itself or non existence
		

			can only be understood in reference to existence.
		

			If I were to ask you a question I say to you imagine non existence. What is this? Nothing you talk
about? Just imagine it? Well, you're gonna imagine what an empty space for you to imagine an empty
empty space, then you will have to make reference to the idea of space.
		

			Thus, I may say nothing or non existence is unintelligible without reference to something just as
zero is unintended. unintelligible the number zero is unintelligible without clear reference to
natural numbers, and negative numbers. So, what is this? Nothing you speak off? Apparently no
reason? Why can't the universe have just come around to? Well, it's different. See, when you get a
free tax rebate, or someone crashes into at a junction, it might seem random, but there is a cause.
It's just so complicated that you can't fathom one thing follows another and another and another and
another and another and then whatever happens, happens. So what does that have to do with everything
		

			coming from nothing? Well, if there's nothing, there's nothing, nothing concours anything.
Everything in the world that happens is because of atoms bumping into other atoms will actually be
never touched. But that's a story for another time, and fields interacting with other fields.
Nothing doesn't have atoms or fields. If
		

			so, what is black and more black? Not even black? Actually just nothing and then for no reason at
all. There's something you see that you haven't You said it yourself. Not not even black anything
you said black and then you realize oh, Black is something not even black anything nothing, okay.
What is nothing? Once again, you have nothing to reference it. Ironically, you know, whatever you
want to speak of nothing, you have to reference it.
		

			Or you have to make reference to something in existence. What is this? Nothing you speak of
		

			unreason, just pop, and out comes a universe. That's mad, nothing can be without a cause. Well, here
are some fun ideas. Time is drunk. What if time can double back on itself? What if the universe was
caused from its own future, there's still a cause there's some effect. It's just that the bang came
first and then the cause caused that much later, maybe at the end of time. Without mental nothing
could go backwards in time.
		

			If you could call your own grandfather paradoxes, etc, etc, etc. Maybe modern physics might allow
for universe might not care about time going backwards as long as everything matches up. If someone
leaves a winning lottery ticket on your doorstep and you win the lottery, go back in time and leave
		

			Have it on your own doorstep to do it again. What's wrong with that? As long as you don't change
anything, everything's conserved, all the i's are dotted T's are crossed, no paradoxes, no problem.
He's talking about something called retro causality. Now, this can be rejected on a priori grounds,
meaning that the logical form that this would necessitate would necessitate a contradiction. For
example, take a B and C as a linear
		

			sequence of some sorts, A equals B, B equals A, C, and C equals is a, c would be effectively caused
by a if this were the case. And so C would be the cause of itself,
		

			or a would be the cause by itself. So causes will be their own cause and effects will be their own
effects, which is exactly logically impossible. On l One, and two on propositional logic. And on s5
was four, which is modal logic. It's something which is on a priori grounds
		

			to be rejected. Now, I want to say something. The fact that you've made this claim in and of itself,
shows me the extent to which you are running away from the inescapable conclusion, the Koran itself,
states, I'm only home in Hawaii, and I'm home, a Harley horn, where they created from themselves,
where they created from nothing or whether they themselves created themselves. So you're trying your
best, you've literally tried to exhaust these options, these two options, which are impossible
options, which are on states, you've tried your best to exhaust these options only to be to hit a
brick wall. Why don't you start considering the real logical options. You could not be created from
		

			nothing. That's ridiculous. And you probably recognize that yourself. And you couldn't create
yourself,
		

			not only because
		

			of causality, but because of dependence. We talked about causality already, causality is defined as
something which brings rise to phenomena. But dependence is different to causality, because
dependence is something which relies upon something else. Now, it's conceivable that something can
cause something, but not that thing does not depend upon it. If I have a son, and he has a son, my
grandson will be caused by me. Yes, but he doesn't depend on me for continued existence. Now, it
would be absurd, even if you wanted to argue for retro causality of the creation of the universe,
it's absurd to to, to estimate that there was a continued reliance of the universe on itself, unless
		

			you want to say that the universe is independent. And if you say that, then you've come away from
atheism, you've left the pile of atheism, my friend, and then you have become a deist. But I will
say it's you arguing reductio? That, in fact, that's impossible, because the universe is composed of
parts. And we said anything composite parts is dependent. And the universe is composed of parts,
therefore, the universe is dependent. But what is it dependent on? Is it dependent on something
that's dependent or something that's independent, it would have to be dependent upon something
that's independent, because if it's dependent on something that's dependent, then there'll be a
		

			series of dependent things if you want to say ad infinitum, say so but then that series itself will
be composed of parts and everything composed, the pause is dependent, and therefore the multiverse
is in is dependent is is composed of parts and therefore the universe is dependent. Therefore, you
really have to, and so do the atheist community step up their game. This is not good enough of all
due respect. This honestly infuriates me that someone is willing to sacrifice their own logical
ability. Yeah, they're, they're able to affront their own. They're able to embarrass their own sense
of decency and common sense by making arguments like this. Why don't you just wake up? Yeah. And
		

			think properly, I want to say to you, honestly, is this company enough is enough,
		

			your day is done. The new atheist
		

			volg, the new atheist wave has now subsided, we must say, think properly. I honestly think properly.
Enough is enough. It's not that you were created from nothing, as I've said, and it's not that you
yourself are the creators of yourself. It's not that the universe was great from nothing. It's not
that the universe universe itself was created for itself. These two things are impossibilities think
about the other option. And I know what you know, and I know that you know what the other option is
Masonic Manitoba.