Channel: Hamza Tzortzis
Let me just repeat the basic structure of the argument, the universe and all that we perceive is either independent, dependent on something else dependent, or dependent on something independent and eternal, the universe and all that we perceive cannot be independent or dependent on something else dependent. Therefore, the universe and all that we perceive, dependent, something independent and eternal. That's the basic structure of the argument. Okay?
Now, before we go into the nitty gritty of the argument, it's very important for us to understand what we mean by dependent in this context.
And before I define what we mean by dependent in this context, I want you to focus on this rational principle.
It is the mark of a rational mind to question that which did not have to be this is the kind of cognitive intellectual motivation for this argument is the sign of a sound Akin a sound intellect. He says, it's a sign of our rational mind to question that, which didn't have to be if we go to the park, and we see a hovering yellow ball, we're not going to pass the hovering, you know, bone and say, Hey, the ball necessarily exists in the park hovering in the way that it does, no, because you're an intelligent human being and you think to yourself,
why is the ball there? How is it hovering? Because it's the sign of a rational mind to question that, which didn't have to be the hovering board didn't have to be there.
So this is the kind of motivation cognitive, intellectual motivation, intuitive motivation for this argument, which is, it's the sign of an intelligent mind to question something that didn't have to be the way that it is. For example, if we're driving, and we pass around about and on the roundabout, we see an arrangement of flowers that says
La Ilaha, Illallah. Right? You're not going to be like, hey, the original flowers necessarily exists in that way? No.
Because you can just tell intuitively and intelligently, using your cognitive faculties, your rational faculties, that there is something about this region of flowers, that is telling me it didn't have to be the way that it is. So it's a sign is a mark of a rational mind to question it. Why is it that that why is it that way? Why is there a region of flowers that says La ilaha illAllah. There is no deity worthy of worship, but Allah. And some of the explanations could be I was chance there was a wind that blew, it could be that there was a gardener, whatever the case may be, it requires an explanation. This is very important for us to understand the whole motivation
behind this argument of dependency is that it's a sign of a rational mind to question that wish didn't have to be. So let's now define dependency. Let's define what we mean by dependency. But by the way, in the philosophical literature, you may see this argument being termed and being labeled as the argument from contingency. And you may see this in Islamic textbooks, Islamic creed books, that when you see translations, for example, of al Qaeda to Hawaii, for example, you would see that it would mention maybe the word contingent, you see that a lot, especially in Korea textbooks, especially in the transition of an explanation of upgraded hardware. So I like to use the word
dependency because it's more common contingencies. No, it's, it's a bit of a tough word. Not that I'm shy of using tough words, but you get the point. So, what do I mean by dependent?
The first thing the first definition of dependent in the context of this argument is that it is not necessary. So something is dependent, if it is not necessary. Now, you may ask the question, what do we mean by necessary necessary means, it was impossible for it to have not existed, let me repeat the concept of necessity is not a kind of concept that we use every day is more philosophical theological concept, that something that is necessary is something in which it was impossible for it to have not existed, it necessarily exists okay. So this will mean by necessary, so therefore, something that is dependent is something that is not necessary, which means what it means it could
have not existed. That's what dependency means.
That's something is dependent if it was possible for it to not exist, for example, am I necessary? No, there's no nothing necessary about my existence, I could have not existed, right? This
wall could have not existed, there is nothing necessary about this wall. My observations of this wall, my understanding of this wall, the features of this wall, do not cry out to me saying that it is necessary, it was impossible for it to have not existed. In actual fact, it's the opposite. It could have not existed, right? Good.
For example, let me give another example, I'm gonna give you lots of examples of these concepts can drill in your mind?
I'm hungry, it's three in the morning.
Okay, it's a hot summer. So you get hungry, and you get thirsty. So what do I do? I wake up, I go downstairs, walk to the kitchen, and open the fridge.
And the light comes on, right? You know, when you open the fridge, the refrigerator the light comes on? And what do I see, I see a pen on top of a egg box.
Do I close the fridge and say
the pen and egg box necessarily exists in the fridge? No, I start to think,
why and how on earth is the 10 on top of the egg box in the fridge.
Because there is nothing necessary about the arrangement, there's nothing necessary about the placement in the fridge, there's nothing necessary about the pen being on top of the egg box.
In actual fact,
they could have been arranged in a different way, they could have not existed at all.
In actual fact, the pen and egg books could have been on top of the fridge, it could have been in the
food cupboard, the pen could have been
in the egg box like you could have been stabbed in the egg box, for example, you get the point you could have been arranged and placed in a different way. There is nothing necessary about the arrangement of the pen and the egg box, and the placement and existence of the pen and the egg box. So what does this mean? It means it requires an explanation. But what type of explanation, it doesn't explain itself, it must be an external explanation. Because it explains itself, it means it's necessary.
It means it's necessary, it means that it was impossible for it to have not existed. But that's the type of explanation that we're looking for now because it is dependent. It is contingent, there's nothing necessary about the pen the egg box. Therefore, it requires an explanation external to itself. So what are the possible explanation in this case, the possible explanations in this case is the pen was designed by somebody was made by somebody, my wife bought a she gave it to the children, they were playing with it, then my son opened the fridge and put it on top of the egg box. For example. Yeah, explanation of the egg box. We like eggs, we bought eggs, you know, eggs came from a
or whatever the case may be. The point is there is an external explanation to explain the existence, presence, arrangement of the pen and egg box. Therefore, it's dependent.
Make sense have a good second definition of dependency.
The components are basic building blocks, the components of fundamental building blocks could have been arranged in a different way. So take material substance, for example, any material substance, a mobile phone,
a house, a car, or even even something smaller.
It has fundamental building blocks, fundamental building blocks, those building blocks are arranged in a particular way.
There is nothing necessary about that arrangement, it could have been arranged in another way.
There's nothing necessary about that arrangement. That arrangement doesn't explain itself. It requires an explanation external to it. Let me give you an example. And I've mentioned this earlier, imagine we're driving a car, we stop near a roundabout actually stopped we stopped near a park. And we've parked up our car and we're we're next to the park. And in the park we see an arrangement of flowers and the arrangement of flowers says I love you. Now there's nothing necessary about arranging the flowers. Those flowers do not explain themselves.
They they there is a requirement there is a need to explain the original the flowers, external to the flowers. And possible explanations could include what it could emit. It could include it was a gust of wind, or it can include it could it could include that it was a god
I'd like the local counsel told the gardener to place the flowers in those way in the place the flowers in that the formation in that arrangement. So the point here is the fundamental fundamental building blocks of things of any material substance, any physical substance could have been arranged in a different way. Because we could ask the question, why is it arranged in that way and not another way?
And that question itself, give right gives rise to an explanation that's external to the arrangement, it requires an explanation external to that particular arrangement.
The other definition of dependency is a very common sense linguistic notion of dependency, that it requires something outside of itself to exist, it's not self subsisting, it requires something outside of itself to exist. Like, for example, you had lunch earlier, if you don't have lunch for a few days and a few weeks, you won't be here anymore, right? You require something outside of yourself in order for you to exist, you are dependent in that way.
Interestingly, and I want you to focus on this because it's an important this is a very important kind of
definition of dependency
dependent things have limited physical qualities, okay. So dependent things have limited physical qualities, another way of putting it the defining feature of a dependent thing is that it has limited physical qualities. For example, look at this coffee cup,
this coffee cup has limited physical qualities, right? It has a certain shape, temperature, size, volume, capacity, smell, even charge.
And its volume, shape, size, color, etc. is limited. It is particular. For example, I don't know it has a volume of say,
a half a liter, or maybe 300 milliliters or whatever the case may be. Now, you could ask the question, why is it this shape and size are not another shape and size? Why is it this color? And not another color? Why is it this smell and not another smell? Why is it this temperature? Not another temperature? Why is it this charge not another charge it therefore, you could ask the question, What explains this limited physical qualities? Well, it can't explain itself because the cup and listen to this very carefully. The cup did not give rise to his limited physical qualities. The cup did not give rise to his limited physical qualities, there must be an explanation outside of
the cup that explains the cup. Sound like brew? See No, right? You know, you know, he's saying the statement of if you put water into a bottle, they become the bottle. If water into a cup, it becomes the cup. Now water can flow, or it can crash be water my friend. I believe he took this Some even Shafi rahimullah, even I'm sure if he has a statement on water
is almost very similar. I'm going to read to you later actually. Anyway, forget my kind of links between different historical figures. Let me give you another example. Take my mobile phone.
Mobile phone has a specific shape, size, color, temperature, texture, charge, smell, right. And it's these things are limited.
It has limited physical quality. So you ask yourself the question, why is it this size? Why is it the shape? Why is it this volume? Why is it this temperature? Why is it this color?
This phone doesn't explain his own limited physical qualities, it can't.
And he can't give rise to his own limited physical qualities. So therefore, it requires an external explanation to explain its limited physical qualities, and hamdulillah.
So let's apply this definition of dependency to the universe. And
we can come to the following explanations,
possible explanations number one, the universe and all that we perceive
eternal, necessary and independent, or the universe and all that we perceive depends for its existence on something else, which is also dependent or the universe and all that we perceive is dependent for its existence on something necessary, and that is accordingly eternal and independent. So we've understood what dependency means we get around four or five definitions.
Now we're gonna apply it to the universe. And once we apply it to the universe, which conclusion Are we going to come up with? Is it going to be that the universe and all that we perceive are ternal necessarily independent? Or is it that the universe and all that we perceive depends for its existence or something else? Which is also dependent? Or are we going to conclude that the universe and all that we perceive is dependent for its existence on something necessary, that is accordingly eternal and independent? So let's now start to conceptualize,
could the universe and all that we perceive be eternal, necessary and independent? Given what we've discussed about the definition of dependency? I want you to answer this question.
Come on, Richard. Yes, Chef could have been arranged in a different way with the stars and the planets. Good. So there's a few things we can now start to understand, well, the universe and all that we perceive there based on fundamental building blocks, if you remember, one of the defining one of the definitions of dependency is that the fundamental building blocks or components of that thing has a certain arrangement, right? It doesn't have to be like physical bits of matter, it could be even like quantum fields, whatever you want. The point is, there is a particular arrangement, why that arrangement, another arrangement? Now, that arrangement doesn't explain itself. Therefore, it
requires an external explanation to explain the arrangement, then you could ask anyone a question, what are the fundamental building blocks of the universe, everything that we perceive, they can give you 50 answers, it doesn't matter. The point is, whatever answer they give you, you could raise the question, did that arrangement give rise to itself? No, there must have been an external thing or set of factors, or whatever the case may be that gave rise to that particular arrangement. So from that definition, you can't say the universe and all that we perceive is independent, is dependent by the very definition.
Give me another answer.
Yes, so the universe, and all that we perceive, have limited physical qualities. And we discussed things that have limited physical qualities did not give rise to themselves. Therefore, there must be an external explanation to explain the limited physical qualities of the universe, or even the fundamental building blocks of the universe, even things within the universe, whether it's plants, trees, stars, galaxies, whatever the case may be, or even even something even more smaller, and fundamental, like quarks, which are in an atom, right. The point here is they have limited physical qualities.
And they can't give rise to their own limitations. Therefore, there is an external explanation or external set of factors that gave rise to those limitations. Give me another reason why the universe and all that we perceive cannot be independent.
When you when you apply that to the universe, maybe let's pause that for now readdress it, but let's pick something else.
What's the easiest one, the first one that we mentioned?
No, that was the third one. What was the first one we mentioned? It's not necessary. Absolutely. And this isn't our credo books. There is nothing necessary about the universe, meaning that there is an explanation for the emergence creation and reality and existence of the universe. The universe doesn't explain itself, because necessity means that the thing that you're talking about, or the phenomenon that you're talking about explains itself. And that meaning necessarily exists. But the universe doesn't necessarily exist. What do we talk about in the beginning, it's the sign is the mark of a rational mind to question that was didn't have to be, the universe could have been another
universe it could have we, even scientifically they say, this universe didn't have to be the way that it is. There could have been another universe with different features and different laws. For example, the universe didn't have to exist at all. It's contingent is dependent from that point of view, because it is not necessary. It has to remind you what does necessity mean. necessity means that it was impossible for you to have not existed, it was impossible for it to have not existed.
But that's not the case for the universe, because it was possible for it to not have existed. That's the point. So is dependent by definition. So good, is excellent. See how we applying the concepts here. So we can conclude that the universe and all that we perceive
are not independent. They're not independent, and therefore they're not necessary. Sick.
the universe, and all that we perceive depends for its existence on something else, which is also dependent. So that's the second possible explanation. We know the first possible explanation is false. What about this one? How do you answer this question? How do you answer and deal with this possible explanation? So some would argue fine, the universe is dependent. It's not necessary. It requires an explanation for its existence. However, that explanation is also something else dependent. How would you address this?
Somebody gave it the old fashioned way.
Yes, but they would say that thing itself is also dependent. What they're saying here is, yes, we agree the universe is dependent from what you've just discussed. It's not independent and necessary.
what explains the existence and the features of the Universe, and Everything within it is something else is also dependent?
Is that a good explanation for us? Yes.
Absolutely. You have an infinite regress of dependencies. What we're looking for is an explanation. You haven't explained anything. You just saying what explains a dependent thing is another dependent thing. Okay, what explains that dependent thing? Oh, another dependent thing.
You're not giving us any explanation here in any shape, or form.
That's the point. And you have an absurdity of an infinite regress of dependencies.
Because the only way to ultimately explain things that are not necessary, the only way to ultimately explain dependent things, is to refer to something that is not dependent and therefore necessary, otherwise, you don't have an expert an ultimate explanation.
And as you said that an infinite number of dependencies is impossible. As we discussed in the previous session, when we talked about the Quranic argument for God's existence. However, let me just move back to I want to test you on this. What if the universe was eternal? And that's why I like this argument, because you could assume the universe is eternal, not that we adopt that, because that would be Cofer. Right? That would be a form of disbelief. But if people bring that to the table, you can address it. Because you don't have to rely on any scientific evidence for this argument. As I said, this is a first principles argument. You could absorb any science, I have a son
and welcome. And with the arguments to works, it's a timeless argument. This is why all the schools of creed in Islam adopted this argument. You see it in the different conceptions of academia where they would refer to the argument from contingency necessity, the argument from dependency, you'll see this, right. So the point being, what if the universe was eternal?
And they were like, they'll be like, see, the universe is eternal? The universe explains itself.
How would you deal with that point?
Think about it.
So they've agreed with you so far. Okay. Hamza, I argued with you about this argument is very good. It's intuitive is based on first principles. You know, we don't have to include any science in this because it transcends science as a metaphysical argument. I agree with what you're saying about necessity and dependency and contingency, that's fine. I agree that the universe cannot be independent and necessary. But you know, what, if the universe is eternal? Doesn't that mean that therefore the universe is necessary?
Think about it. No, it doesn't,
even if the universe was eternal. So
it doesn't mean now. It necessarily exists. And here's an interesting example. Imagine there are an infinite number of human beings. each human being was produced by the biological activity of their parents. And each of these parents was in turn produced by the biological activity of their parents ad infinitum. Wouldn't it still be perfectly reasonable to ask, why are there any human beings at all?
Fine, even if it's an eternal number of infinite number of human beings? Fine, let's take it. The universe is eternal. Let's just accept it One moment, how does that now follow is therefore necessary.
I agree for something to be necessary. It has to be eternal. But for something to be eternal, it doesn't mean has to be necessary. You get the logic here, then we repeat, for something to be necessary. It has to be eternal. Why? Because if it was finite, requires an explanation of why it's finite, right? So it's not necessary anymore. However, something be eternal, doesn't mean it has to be necessary, although if something is necessary, has to be eternal. So in this case, the saying, well, the universe is
As a channel, therefore it's necessary but doesn't logically follow. Because you can have an infinite number of human beings, right that exist for eternity. But you can still ask the question, Why are the human beings in existence in the first place? Because it's the sign of a rational mind to question that was didn't have to be, there is nothing necessary about the existence and each part of the chain of the human beings. You could ask, why are they there, their fundamental building blocks of those of those of those human being could be arranged in a particular way, in a different way. Each of those human beings have limited physical qualities that didn't give rise to themselves,
there must be an external explanation that gave rise to those limited physical qualities of those human beings and every human being in that chain. So whether you think is a turn or not is irrelevant for this argument. It still follows that requires an external explanation. There's nothing necessary about your so called eternal universe, because there could have been another eternal universe with different features and laws. For example, in actual fact, that there could have been a universe that wasn't a ton about finite, there could have been a universe that didn't exist at all, right? There's nothing necessary about the existence of your so called eternal
So it doesn't follow just because something is eternal it therefore, it means it must be necessary that doesn't follow.
And this full experiment by showing that imagine you had an infinite number of human beings,
you still could perfectly ask the question, Well, why the human beings in the first place? And why did that why'd Why do they have those limited physical qualities, why they arranged in that particular way?
So the universe is not independent, necessarily an eternal number to the universe that's dependent cannot be explained by something else that's dependent. And even if you claim the universe is eternal, it doesn't follow that it's necessary. So therefore, the best explanation, the only rational explanation is the universe and all that we perceive depends on something independent and eternal.
Why is it independent? Very simple, because if it were dependent, it would require an explanation that we you don't have any answer.
It has to be eternal, because if it was not eternal, in other words, finite, it would be dependent. And finite things require an explanation for the existence dependent things require an explanation for the existence. So it has to be independent, and eternal, therefore, we can conclude that the universe and everything that we perceive depends upon something that is eternal and independent. And this is best explained by the Islamic conception of the Divine that Allah is independent, he necessarily exists. And this terminology exists in our creative textbooks.
As you see, in the Islamic tradition, Allah subhana wa tada says, Allah is independent, all that exists, all mankind, it is you who stand in need of Allah, whereas He alone is self sufficient, the one who all praises do, and Ibn katheer,
the exegete, the one who explained the Quran, the classical scholar, he mentioned concerning the above verse, they need him in all that they do, and he has no need of them at all. He is unique in his being free of all needs, and has no partner or associate. However, as you know, the human being is a contentious fellow, as the Quran says, you know, we want to split the split their hair in an infinite number of ways, as they say. The first contention is, well, the universe exists independently.
This is an easy contention, because we've addressed it in the argument, they'll say, oh, whoa, the university has got limited physical qualities, the universe needs explanation, but who cares? It just exists independently? Well, the easy way to deal with this is, well, that's a cop out. Because we already know that the universe and everything that we perceive within it has limited physical qualities is fundamental building blocks, building blocks are arranged in a particular way. Why is it that arrangement not another particular arrangement, therefore requires an external explanation? There is nothing necessary about the universe itself. When we observe and trying to even perceive
the universe, there's nothing that cries out to us that says, it's necessarily existing No, in actual fact, it's the opposite. When we live and experience the universe, and the cosmos is actually telling us they could have not existed, right? Nothing necessary about its existence, meaning it could have not existed there is nothing necessary about the way that it is. Right. So that's a cop out, you can't just claim is independent just because you want it to. Well, there's a little bit more of a complex contention. It says, well, the universe is a brute fact.
Is is a brute fact get over it. You will never know.
And it's just a brute fact forget about.
There is no explanation for the universe. That's what they're basically saying here. There's a Bertrand Russell argument. I think he mentioned this in the 1960s in a BBC Radio debate he had with someone he said is that
brute fact, there's no explanation for the universe, get over it. Get over it. How would you address this?
Go for it.
It's not an argument. But why?
But why is it not a rational argument?
Something that exists?
Well, not always the case, not something that exists must have come from something, something that began to exist must have come from something and something that exists, that is not necessary must have an explanation, because you can't see everything that exists comes from something because I lie exists, right?
And probably even philosophers would never say that everything that exists has a cause. That's not true. Everything that begins to exist as a cause, or everything that exists that has features that show that it's not necessary requires an explanation, which is a bit more subtle with those things. Yeah. Yes.
Dependent thing has no explanation. Yeah. So good. Well done. So basically, what they're saying is, we're a dependent thing that like the universe has no explanation, or it does have explanation. You just don't know the explanation yet. Or you're not willing to go down that path, because we'll end up with, with God. Right. And that's why people like to, to not address these cosmic conclusions. Let me make you think about this, right.
As I said, in the beginning, imagine you're walking down the street and you see a hovering green ball.
Does the hovering green board exist necessarily? know, is there anything necessary about its existence? Because it could have not been there? Right, it's possible for it to not have been there at all correct? Good. Now get that green board and make it the size of the Earth?
Does it necessarily exist?
Same question applies, doesn't it? Now make it the size of the galaxy? Same question exists? Making the size of the universe? Same question exists? There you go. You can't see it's a brute fact, it requires an explanation. That's the point. And what is the explanation? Now if you follow this argument through properly, you rationally use your rational faculties, your current abilities, then you will come to the conclude the only ultimate explanation that explains the dependency of the universe is that there is an independent and eternal being that gave rise explains this universe. That's the point. And what's interesting is, it's counter science, it's anti science, you're also
goes against other spheres of knowledge. Why
will take science specifically here? Isn't there a field of science that deals with the question of the about the universe, how it began to exist? It's good cosmology, that the answer that contingent itself is denying a whole sphere of knowledge in science, which is cosmology, the beginning of the universe, how began, you know, the Big Bang, and all the different 17 different models that they have at the moment, right? That's the plane
falling on from this way, if someone says science will find an answer,
I don't need to read the answer. So I'm moving back. What is this a you know what this is God of the gaps Hamza.
you're basing this on ignorance, you have a ignorance of an explanation and ignorance of the scientific explanation, or we don't currently have a scientific explanation for the universe, in terms of why it is the way that it is, and about its necessity and dependency in all of these related concepts. You're just squeezing god there, you squeeze in independent, eternal being just to satisfy your ignorance. Right? How would you address this?
In our religious belief,
yes, I would argue this contention
is based upon an internal denial of the Divine because they don't want God to be in the equation anyway, fine. But let's just take what the thing for at face value this thing, Hunter, you don't know the science, there is no scientific explanation at the moment. Therefore, you're just squeezing God in there. Because you have a gap in your understanding. That's not an argument.
Right. So how do we respond to this? Well, it's very easy. I mentioned this in the beginning. sciences are relevant to this argument. It's an empirical argument. It is a first principle metaphysical argument. You could bring all the science you want. And that was Alan. This opened the door. Come inside all this
You could bring a scientific explanation in 3050. If we're still alive, like humans, that is, yeah, bring anything you want. Why? Because what can science only refer to? If you studied the philosophy of science and their method of science? What can science only refer to? Well, let me give you a hint. atheist philosopher, Professor Elliot sober in his essay empiricism. What does he say?
at any, any moment scientists are restricted to
the observations they have at hand, can you observe something necessary? Because the minute you observe it, you can only observe limited physical qualities, which means you can only observe dependent things. size can only refer to things that are dependent. So whatever scientific answer, explanation, theory, whatever the case may be, musing, right, that they come up with, a would always refer to something that is dependent.
So the interesting thing here is, science can never solve this question. It's a metaphysical question. That's the point. And that's why I love this argument. You don't have to be a scientist, you just have to be a thinker. And Muslims are thinkers, right? This is the point. So whatever size even though there's a multiverse, there's a million universes, a billion universes, there's a world ensemble, there's a spaghetti monster, or whatever they whatever they want to bring. If they bring anything that scientific, it would always refer to something that is dependent.
100 hamdulillah. As I said, Here, this is not a scientific argument. It is a metaphysical one based on first principles. All that science can do is provide answers that we refer to refund phenomena that are dependent science cannot point to something that necessarily exists. So we've defined dependency, we've applied that definition, or an each time we define the different aspects of what we mean by dependent, we gave practical examples, then we apply that to the universe, then we had three logical explanations. The universe is independent, eternal, or the universe is dependent by depends on something else that's dependent is explained by something else that's dependent, or the
universe is explained by something that's independent and eternal. We dealt with all of those issues, and we concluded the universe must be as a result, or is explained by something that's independent, and eternal. I believe this is enough to awaken the truth within, if you remember what we discuss about the fitrah, the innate disposition, it gets clouded, this argument can awaken the truth in and if there are more nitty gritty type of questions, then I think there'll be an indicator that something else is going on maybe something psycho social, psycho spiritual, and then made us engage with them in a polite way, buy them dinner, right? Because I think this is enough to awaken
that intuitive truth within. So you had a question? Sure.
No, okay, good. Yes, sir. You mentioned
Yes, it's possible as internal
isn't necessary? Yes, absolutely. So the point is, whatever they bring to you, even if they give you a scientific explanation, and they say that it's eternal. That's not a problem, because we said, eternal things are not necessary, are not always necessary. But necessary, things are always eternal, by some eternal things are always necessary. So even if they give you an eternal number of universes, those universes are still dependent. So they're just explaining the dependent Universe by more dependent things. science can never refer to something that is necessary from that point of view, because the minute
a, it's a scientific explanation, or scientific conclusion, is the minute that it becomes dependent, because it's based on whether you can observe, and we can only observe limited physical qualities. That's it. It's actually that simple. So if people say you've just made up the idea of necessity, just to squeeze God in as an explanation, No, we haven't. We've talked about the idea that the universe is dependent. And we define what that means. And everything within it is dependent. And we define what dependent means. And we've come to the conclusion that the only thing to explain that ultimately, is a necessary, independent, eternal being. Lo and behold, that is in line with Islamic
conception of God. So we haven't made up necessity just to prove God. And plus necessity as a concept exists in Western philosophy anywhere, especially in logic. So it's not a problem. Yeah, we haven't made this term up. Also, if someone says, What doesn't God require an explanation? No, because we just discussed that God is the independent, necessary eternal being and by definition, necessary beings explain themselves by virtue of the own existence. They don't require an explanation external to themselves. So there you go. Job done.