EXPOSING Mohammed Hijab's Candle Error

According to Mohammed Hijab in his recent debate with Dr. Craig, two matches create a larger flame and that's why causal overdetermination is impossible.......

#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod

[CaniDomini]

Some defenders of Mohammed are responding that the right flame was bigger. (1) That response misses Dr. Craig's claim, which is just that two causes (two lit matches) can each be wholly sufficient for the same effect (one lit wick). (2) Even though the response is irrelevant, it's factually wrong. At the point of contact, the right flame wasn't bigger than the left. Compare 0:44-45 to 1:09-10.

[MU-wehz]

For this to work, it has to be an arabic

[stevelinley]

That isn't the original candle: that one is corrupted.

[edgardtheknowledgekeeper]

I was literally thinking while watching the debate “that’s not how fire works.” 😂

[jonathannkalpha]

Its not the candles that blind but the lights that are blind

[Eduardo_Ventura]

Give him a rest. He graduated by his father's "Cambridge Institute" in Egypt.

[BringMeTheProof]

I think Muslims equate loud talking with making a valid argument. Dr. Craig calm and cool explaining himself over and over again like he was talking to a misbehaving child.

[lahleholivia]

So candles make no sense but PDF Files do, - Sunan an-Nasa'i 3378❗

🙃

[Rohan-jwpm]

I am interested in measuring scientifically to see whether the flame remains the same. Because definitely, there is a change during moments when two come together, even though we cannot notice it at a minor level. Just as a shadow under sunlight seems still, it doesn't mean it's not moving. It's basic understanding that we cannot come to conclusions on this with a simple experiment like this without any measurements or data.

PS: Even in this experiment the flame reduced when you took away the match stick away from the candle flame initially. @ 0:43

[JadDragon]

Dying right now 💀

Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑

[sayyid]

So two candles can both give 100% of the chemical reaction to ignite the singular candle?

[coaching.worked]

"It's simple science: more wood leads to a bigger flame. It's common sense."

[YeshuaIsTruth]

Not been a goood month for Islam online debates 😅

[ricardogarcia-vihv]

Lets be a little serious.

The first philosophical problem is apply material categories to something that is pure spirit, or inmaterial.

[matthewsocoollike]

Yea but Craig’s analogy still fails. Both matches contributed partially to the candle being lit. You can’t have one match being fully responsible, because part of the thermal energy necessary to light the candle came from the other match, even IF the first match has enough power to light the candle. The same way if I build a LEGO house with my son, we are both partially responsible although we have the power to do it on our own.

[KD-ehqo]

Hijab doesn't seem to understand that just because there isn't a physical example that is 100% analogous to a spiritual concept, doesn't mean it is an incoherent concept. Does he believe there is any physical phenomena that is 100% analogous to allah? If not, does that automatically disprove his allah?

Even if we grant him that two matches do not make exactly the same flame as a single match (e.g one has more atoms or whatever), let's imagine if we lived in a world where they did. Would there be anything *logically* contradictory/incoherent about that? Of course not.

Hijab's argument is a complete non-sequitur

[jeetroy]

In the case where two matches are used to light a candle, even though one match would have been sufficient, both matches are not 100% responsible for lighting the candle. Here's why:

Causal Overdetermination: This situation is an example of causal overdetermination. Overdetermination occurs when multiple causes independently produce the same effect. In your example, either of the two matches could have lit the candle on its own, but both were used. Each match could be said to be fully sufficient to cause the event, yet neither is solely responsible.

Here's a simple physical explanation using your candle and matches example:

Candle and Matches:

To light the candle, the wick needs a certain amount of heat energy (let's say 100 joules) to reach its ignition temperature.

If you use one match, it will provide the necessary heat, but it might take a little longer for the wick to absorb all the energy and light up. The match has to burn longer to reach that 100 joules.

If you use two matches at the same time, they both contribute heat. Each match might provide 50 joules of energy, so together, they provide the total 100 joules faster than one match alone. This means the candle will light quicker, but each match is contributing only part of the total energy needed.


Key Points:

One match alone can light the candle, but it will take longer.

Two matches together share the load, combining their energy to light the candle more quickly.

Neither match is doing 100% of the work, but they combine to give the total energy needed faster.


This is similar to how two people lifting a heavy object share the effort—they do it faster and with less strain on each person compared to one person doing it alone.

Simple Summary:

Two matches together light the candle faster because they share the heat energy needed. Each match contributes part of the total energy, so neither match is doing all the work. This shared contribution makes the process quicker compared to using just one match.

[Samzz]

Some Science for Cameron and the rest in the comments.

Using two matchsticks simultaneously on a candle will produce a bigger initial flame compared to using just one. Scientifically speaking:
-Increased Fuel: Each matchstick contains fuel (wood, sulfur, and other flammable chemicals). When two matches are lit together, there's more fuel burning at the same time, leading to a larger flame.
-Increased Heat: Two flames generate more heat than one, which can cause the candle wax to melt faster, potentially producing a larger, more sustained flame initially.
-Oxygen Supply: However, the size of the flame is also dependent on oxygen availability. If the two matchsticks are too close to each other, they may compete for the same oxygen, limiting how much larger the flame can get. But in open air, there would be sufficient oxygen for a bigger flame.

In short, two matchsticks will initially produce a bigger flame due to the added fuel and heat, but the size difference might be temporary as the candle's flame will eventually stabilize based on the candle wick's fuel and oxygen supply.

MOREOVER the candle analogy does no real service to the matters at hand because as WLC CORRECTLY pointed out: "...now every physical illustration is going to involve points of disanalogy when you're talking about spiritual entities so the fact that maybe the flame would be bigger if it's lit by two matches instead of one match that's just irrelevant to the question of whether or not you can have two causes currently acting to produce a single effect..."

The point of the matter is the fact that the father and son have two separate wills, immediately necessitates polytheism. Regardless of whether their wills are congruent. If the father wanted to, could the father outwill the son? If yes, the son is not God, if no, the father is not God. In either scenario, it is necessary to have a single willed being that has absolute omnipotence above everything else. To posit otherwise would mean that God is no longer a necessary being, rather a contingent one, which opens the doors for Atheism being true. It is not befitting of God to have a son, because to have a son causes a reduction in necessary perfection.

John 17:3 "And this is life eternal: that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."
Jesus admitted the father is the only "true God". Zero Ambiguity. Jesus himself has solved centuries of dilemmas between Muslims and Christians, yet we still all fighting.

I would love to hear feedback on my thoughts. Thank you.

[tionarry]

Can two matches effectively and simultaneously light a candle? If the answer is yes, that's all the analogy needs for it to work

[ryubas]

Thank you, i know its hard to accept Craig destroyed by Mohammed Hijab😢