Comments by "" (@AlonzoHarris235) on "How Muhammad Hijab helped convert me to Islam | The Scientific Miracle of the Candle." video.

Your video is a misrepresentation. Did he claim to light fire on two candles?🥴 Christians are cheering for your complete misrepresentation and strawman. That’s why the churches are empty. Always trying to twist what people say. Two candles that come TOGETHER have a bigger flame together. There is also more energy. The trinity is three gods.
5
@ImCarolB Hijab is right. Two candles that come Together have a bigger fire. If they light up another candle. They are not each fully the cause. Your analogy completely fails. That’s why you follow this empty head Chris.
2
@123dsj123 This is nonsense. Both matches are not fully the cause. Your analogy completely fails. Two matches have together more energy and are not each fully the cause. Hijab is right.
1
@FisherOfMenParakletos The trinity is three gods.
1
@bhaveaniceday5392 Your comment has no substance.
1
@123dsj123 You haven’t watched the debate. Both matches can’t be fully responsible for the flame. That was the argument of Hijab. It’s typical of a Christian to cut that out. Hijab is right. The flames are not each fully the cause of the flame. Both flames are bigger than one flame. This analogy only proves partialism. Your analogy is a heresy. Hijab is right.
1
@QueenQaffir Is Jesus the triune god?
1
@QueenQaffir Is Jesus the triune god? Yes or not?
1
@stephenadelakun The experiment is a complete misrepresentation of the logical objection. Two matches are not fully the cause. Your analogy is the heresy of partialism.
1
He is clueless. He just makes silly videos for his sheep followers. They both aren’t EACH FULLY the cause for the flame. This went over his head. The video is a complete misrepresentation. That’s why the churches are empty
1
@Yeoman530 Your analogy is a heresy. Two matches are not fully the cause in your example. The light (cause) is also bigger than one match. It’s not our problem that your analogy completely fails. You don’t respond to a refutation by repeating your refuted analogy. Do you have an argument against the refutation of Hijab?
1
@milesfidei It’s not pointless. You just don’t get it. They both aren’t EACH FULLY the cause for the flame. This went over your head. The video is a complete misrepresentation. That’s why the churches are empty
1
@milesfidei It has to be. He claims that each person is fully the cause. His analogy complete fails as Hijab pointed out. If your analogy doesn’t work. Don’t blame the one that demonstrates that the analogy fails. If a refutation is demonstrated. You have to provide counter arguments instead of making these silly childish videos.
1
@milesfidei You can do that. We can point out the problems in your analogy. It reminds me when Christians use analogies for the trinity. They always end up in heresies. If we point this out. We get answers that it’s just to show how three cab be one. The logical problem and objection is not that three can’t be one. William Lane Craig is not addressing the objection. He just gives a failed analogy to a valid objection. You don’t solve the objection with a failed analogy. Do you get that or not? You blame the one that demonstrates the problems with the analogy instead of providing arguments against the refutation of the analogy.
1
You just don’t get it. They both aren’t EACH FULLY the cause for the flame. This went over your head. The video is a complete misrepresentation. That’s why the churches are empty
1
@Yeoman530 That’s not the argument. It’s one god in your trinity. He was arguing for an independent full cause of each person. In your analogy each match is not fully the cause. The flame is also bigger as Hijab pointed out. If your analogy is refuted. Try to provide arguments instead of repeating your refuted analogy. Hijab is right.
1
@nyctom08 You haven’t made an argument. Hijab literally said that both can’t be fully responsible for the effect. You are just proving that. The two matches are not each fully the cause of the effect. Hijab is right. You simply can’t follow an argument. That’s why you have no substance.
1
@nyctom08 Chris is misrepresenting Hijab. That’s why he cut the part out where Hijab literally says that both can’t be fully responsible. Hijab pointed out that his analogy is partialism. You can’t even follow an argument. Christians reject logic.
1
@bac7 If one is fully responsible. The analogy fails. In the trinity each person is fully responsible.
1
@xxphillips This is false. We have the same essence. Are we one being or two beings?
1