The 2 are equal in NOT BEING REQUIRED by the very nature of the being.

There’s nothing in the nature of the being that requires either. Left to itself, the thing would remain a possibility without occurrence and this state would need to maintain forever until something comes along to prefer one over the other (since it’s very being is not doing it, otherwise it would have been existent since eternity past).

The idea is complex and the reason for the complexity is the axiom was self-evidently true to begin with (this was stated in the article). This is what happens when obvious things are proven deductively.

Can you please let me know if this is relevant to this discussion in any way and if my connection of the following concepts to this article is valid:

I read this in Wikipedia:

In particle physics, fundamental interactions (sometimes called interactive forces) are the ways that elementary particles interact with one another. An interaction is fundamental when it cannot be described in terms of other interactions. The four known fundamental interactions, all of which are non-contact forces, are electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction (also known as “strong” and “weak nuclear force” respectively) and gravitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
Basically, the way I understand it, the physicists are admitting that these fundamental forces are not contingent (or explainable) effects with an identifiable cause. Even if they somehow explain something, I am sure it will be through something else which is also unexplainable. Isn’t it possible that these unexplainable forces is just how Allah is choosing to exercise His will? Moreover this is what they say about contact forces:

A non-contact force is a force applied to an object by another body that is not in direct contact with it. The most familiar example of a non-contact force is gravity. In contrast a contact force is a force applied to a body by another body that is in contact with it. However it is to be noted that the origin of all contact forces (such as, for example, friction) can be traced to non-contact forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-contact_force
So here they are admitting that every contingent cause is a direct result of these non-contingent, non-contact, fundamental forces. Am I imagining something here, or is there actually something here?

This is what we are objecting to, since Allah’s Power being connected to every possibility is absolutely true with no possibility of it being otherwise, for if it was otherwise then the being we call “Allah” would be just another creation.

Similarly for all the Attributes of Allah. It is meaningless to ask, for example, why the Power of Allah cannot restrict His Will, or why it cannot restrict His Knowledge, since these are not like the attributes of creation which are only possibilities that are susceptible to change.

If you say that it is probability then you are saying one side has a 50 percent chance of coming about without a cause so be careful.

Then we would say:

We are dealing with only two “sides” in this scenario.

If we suppose that things happen without a cause, we are saying (as you say) that the “first side” has a 50 per cent chance of happening. Here we agree. What some people forget is that the “second side” also has a 50 per cent chance of happening as well, if we assume no cause. So in such a causeless scenario, there is a 50/50 chance of the “first side” occurring or not occurring, as well as a 50/50 chance of the “second side” occurring or not occurring.

This is why it was important in the first step to obtain the concession from the opponent saying that a change had taken place, because it would tell us for certain that there are two sides and that both of them are possible to occur, and that at a certain point in time, one of them has occurred while the other one has not occurred. When we see this, we can see that there is a contradiction between that which we observe and what the situation would have been had the causeless scenario been true.

If someone wants to say that one of the two choices has a priority in and of itself, then tehy can tell us why they think so.

I meant to say was, what if it was said that the occurrence was based on probability I.E. 50/50 chance.

If you say that it is probability then you are saying one side has a 50 percent chance of coming about without a cause so be careful.

However if you have a scale both with equal weight,then probability has nothing to do with one side becoming more weightier.

It cannot be said that one side has a 50 percent chance in this scenario. I posted this question to see the objections to this thought.

Yes, basically it is the same. But the one on sunnianswers is more general, starting out by saying that “We are here now”, and then moving on to show that the reason for our existence could not be something like ourselves. But the one by Mufti Yusuf is more detailed and tries to concentrate on one small ordinary change and works its way up with this change rather than the phrase “We are here now”. Basically all the arguments from the orthodox Muslim scholars are the same in this respect, it is just that sometimes incidents may be used to prove this argument, and sometimes bodies are used to prove the same.