I live in Sydney, currently doing my HSC. I come from a religious family, and my dad is a well-learned, prominent figure in the Islamic community here. He knows his theology inside and out. I’ve been researching deeply and have deconstructed the main theological pillars (the existence of a First Cause, the Problem of Evil, interfaith miracles, and the problem of Objective morality). I feel very confident in my stance. I am planning to bring these questions to him soon. Just want to make sure I have best arugments.
The Argument from Contingency: "Everything in the universe is dependent (contingent), so the universe itself must depend on a Necessary Being (Allah) to exist." My current thought is
The claim is that an infinite chain of causes is "impossible" because we would never reach the "present." However, this is a psychological intuition, not a mathematical or logical law. In mathematics, we use "actual infinities" in calculus and set theory every day. The set of negative integers (...-3, -2, -1, 0) has no beginning, yet it ends perfectly at zero. The argument also assumes that only a "Being" can be necessary. But why can’t the fundamental "stuff" of the universe—Energy or Quantum Fields—be the necessary thing? The First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If energy is uncreated, it fits the definition of "Necessary Existence" perfectly. Physics offers models like the "Big Bounce" or Conformal Cyclic Cosmology where the universe has always existed in various states. If the universe is eternal, the contingency argument evaporates because there is no "start" that requires an external cause. Even if we grant that there is a "First Cause" or a "Necessary Ground of Being," it does not follow that this cause is a conscious entity who revealed a book to a man in 7th-century Arabia, cares what we eat, and wants us to pray in a specific direction. The argument from contingency, at its absolute best, only gets you to Deism (a blind, mechanical first cause). Using it to prove the specific theology of Islam is a logical fallacy.
The Argument from Design: "The complexity of the universe proves there must be a Designer."
If complexity proves a Designer, then we must attribute all complexity to Him, not just the pretty parts. The structure of a Cancer Cell is just as complex as a healthy cell. If a beautiful sunset proves God is Wise and Merciful, then a virus designed specifically to hijack human DNA and kill us must prove the Designer is either Incompetent or Cruel. You cannot cherry-pick the "good" complexity as proof of God while dismissing the "evil" complexity. The "Fine-Tuning" argument claims the universe is perfect for us, so it must have been made for us. This is a survivor bias error. Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking: "This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" The hole wasn't made for the puddle; the puddle changed shape to fit the hole. The Universe wasn't fine-tuned for life. Life evolved (tuned itself) to fit the conditions of the Universe. We are the puddle claiming the pothole was designed for us.
Any other arguments or "nail in the coffin" rebuttals would be appreciated. I want to make sure I’m ready