3 Clever Atheists Tell Muslim why they’re Atheist
Channel: Mohammed Hijab
File Size: 19.10MB
The phone is coming to you. That's not my argument. All I've said is that this phone depends upon something else in order to exist. That is my point. So my premise here, guys, I don't want you to lose this premise. Is that anything with limited variables? Depends on. Okay. Limited variables means that it's not unlimited in its composition.
Let me give you an easy example. Okay?
There is a finite number of atoms, that finite number of what not atoms, I'm just saying finite number of whatever it may be, whatever, whatever makes whatever makes up this phone, silicone, whatever it may be. It's finite, right? It's not infinite in its nature, is it? Like, for example, me. I'm composed of blood and tissue and water and all these things, right? But there's a finite number of those variables inside of my physical biological frame. What I'm saying is that anything with such a description, which is finite in its composition, depends upon something else in order to exist. That's all I'm saying.
We're not talking about God, God is out of the discussion at the moment.
Okay, if you want to perfect God, we will say, but what what we would say just answer that kind of question is God is not finite, simple. The definition of God is that he is infinite in his mercy, his knowledge, etc. So he would be not in the category of things that will just come back to that. Like, is that gone?
Obviously, not. The training isn't gone. So God can be infinite because he begins to lose the dream. If there's nothing that isn't God, surely finite would be my Yeah, exactly. So you're right. Something which isn't God is finite. That's correct. But God isn't the tree. That's right. That's fine. I mean, why would that mean? No?
Well, if God is on the tree, so the tree is finite. So if he wasn't a tree, why would that make him so finite? Well, because everything apart from the tree, we didn't say he's everything's
fine, but he's
okay. Are you saying that he's unlimited in his that he's occupying every crevice of creation? No, that's what I'm suggesting. If you're not we don't believe that.
conception of theology, right?
I don't really understand the spirit one thing, but it just seems to be words, okay. Everything is what if I said to you listen, every human being is mortal. Is that a controversial statement? Guys Really? know if I said Socrates, is a human being?
Would you have a problem with that?
Would you understand? If I said every human every human being is mortal? Is there a problem?
Is there no problem? Socrates is a human being?
Yes, yes. Are you sure?
You will, okay. Well, he was a human being Yeah.
Therefore, therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Okay, see how you were able to simply follow the logic in that there was no controversy? I could have said, Listen, hold on premise number two, Socrates. We don't know if he existed or not. I can say that. We only know that Socrates existed through Plato. Actually, he hasn't written any of his own books. How do we know he exists, and we can't see his tomb. But you just easily went from premise one, premise two, premise three. I think. So going back to your last sort of step, we're out you said. I think as far as I'm aware, I agree that anything that has limited variables is dependent is dependent on something unless we use unless we use this sort of concept. Well, we're all created
from, you know, startups. And
so the universe has limited variables. Is that accepted? That's where that's where I stopped. Okay. Is the universe not in? Is the universe unlimited in its variables? The amount of stars that composed the universe, the amount of black holes are in the universe, the amount of helium that's in the universe? Is that limited or unlimited? It's unlimited in its
No, it's not.
I'm just saying that we can't ever know first and foremost, we're not talking about time, we're talking about variables which are independent from time,
than they are they are they are not they are finite in so much as physical matter that we can register at the moment. What are moving into the concept of space? Is it truly empty that they're moving into? Or is there something there that we can't yet understand whether it's empty, Okay, that's good, whether it's empty or not empty. Okay? That's aside the point. Because if they're moving into something that's actually indicative of the fact that they must be finite by their nature, if the universe is expanding, do you accept the university? Yes. If you accept that the universe is expanding
Then you by by virtue of necessity actually must accept that the universe is finite and infinite, because it cannot something which is infinite cannot increase in number and size.
Okay. But Jonathan is plenty.
Okay. But I think going back to the last, I suppose a exception to that point is if something has always existed anyway, even if it is limited in its variable. That's what we're saying that's, that's begging the question for me. Because I've just said to you, that I don't believe such an entity does exist, you made a conditional. And I said, if something has existed, but it's always been there, I'm saying that just whereas an example of that, just go back to the phone example. Yeah, we agree that this has been, it's the limited variable and it is caused by something.
If this has always existed for eternity, yeah. But if, for me, is a non relevant if it's like saying, if, you know, there's a multiverse, and therefore there's been this conversation has taken place before some sometime in the future. For me, that is unsubstantiated. As far as I can say, anyway, there's an unlimited amount of ifs that I can presuppose to any given situation, but we shouldn't use it to block logical pathways from taking place. There's no it's not blocking. It's not just using I'm using the phone. I'm not saying the phones actually existed, right? I'm just saying imagine
using it as a metaphorical example. Okay. Imagine the phone has existed for eternity. Yes. Although is limited in its variables.
For eternity, then nothing has always been my presupposition, nothing needs to call my my contention is exactly this. I'm saying that it's not possible for something with limited variables to ever Forever exist.
Without and without being dependent. In order for that my contention to be disproved, you'd have to give me a live example.
That's how science works. science works.
Science sciences. Here's a theory. Yeah. Let's try and test to see if we can prove it or disprove. Yeah. And then what do you put off for that? I have a theory and I cannot
prove or disprove Hold on. When you've done that you put your scientific theory in where I need to proved it. But I haven't disproved that either. No, no, that's not the way science works. science works is a hypothesis experimentation, and then you've got you then you put it into peer reviewed journals, right? Then it's the job of other scientists to falsify that, that whatever it is that you put on things, so in other words, just just you just repeat, we can't disprove the existence of a god, therefore, I am no longer playing the physical and the metaphysical. Here, the physical is what because science has naturalistic presuppositions, it has a methodology, methodological naturalism as
its base. In other words, you cannot put under a microscope, things which are metaphysical, you can only put under a microscope that which is physical. Now you've made a statement about physical entities, not metaphysical entities. It talks about the phone, which actually a physical entity. So I'm saying that I'm my contention today is that we have not yet found in the history of the worlds an example of something which is limited in its variables, yet an independent and if you have an
entity can matter can't be created or destroyed. So you're saying matter, that's within the circle of the universe? Yeah. Within the circle of the universe, right. So that that once again, wouldn't apply
the context in which that
would only work within the circuit of the universe? Yes. So if the universe came into existence,
if the universe came, so he's just always been there, in your mind.
Even if you say that yours was always been there. Yeah. You still have to recognize that the universe is composed of a limited amount of variables.
It seems almost as if you're just doing the cause argument. It's not.
This is the contingency argument. So here are the components. I agree with you. I agree that I believe that the universe is containing unlimited variables, I think. Okay, good. So if we go to the next stage now, because we don't want to speak too short. If that's the case, the universe is composed of limited variables, number one, number two,
and that which has we said, Sorry, number one, that which is limited in its variables dependable something else? Number two, we didn't we decided we didn't agree with that. Why have you got anything to prove it or disprove it? Well, I can't like I can't prove or disprove it.
So that's why I don't know if you say you can't prove or disprove of it. Yeah. Then it doesn't mean No, it doesn't mean it's not true. No, hold on, that's not good enough to dismiss it. Let me give you an example. If I say to him,
that the Big Bang Theory itself, yeah.
Do you accept it, whatever you say, look, I might be able to prove I can't prove or disprove I've got evidence for it, I can't prove or disprove it. That sentence, I cannot prove or disprove it is applicable to almost everything
is applicable to almost everything. And you can use that sentence to get away from believing in anything. Now, what I'm saying to you today is that you can continue saying this to yourself. And I believe in self delusion, by the way, if you say, I can't prove or disprove this, I'm not gonna believe, I believe that's a form of self delusion. If you can find an example, if I if I can find you, 1 billion examples using induction of something being the case for a reason. That's good reason to accept it. That's how science works. You accept science, you go to the doctor when you're ill. I'm saying that in the physical world, anything that you see, which has limited amount of variables,
is dependent upon something else. I have a billion examples of that. Any example you want to give around us is an example of that anything around in fact is an example of that. I'm saying you'll say well, you can't prove or disprove your the same induction that you use to prove your own existence or the same exact induction that you use to prove almost anything that you believe in. You've rejected here but why okay.
I can give you a billion examples of plants that agree Yes, every plant as far as I'm aware has an element of destiny that's it that's a false dichotomy. But you're saying that if you went well I can get you I get your blue plan let me finish if you weren't a billion miles away went to a planet with Herbalife based on that reasoning you would say? They must have their plants will be green because had a billion Okay, this is David Humes whole White Swan examples, right.
They've been his wife's home example. Exactly. This. If you say all I've seen 100 swans, all of the swans are white. Yeah, I see one black swan. I've disproved the thesis that all swans are white. I am saying to you, that everything. Everything around us in this universe, which has limited variable, including the universe itself, which has limited variables, is contingent on something else. First and foremost, existence is dependent upon something else.
So if you have one example, that disproves this thesis, you've done exactly what what someone would have done if they found one black swan. If you haven't found the Black Swan, you cannot say that black swans exists. Yes. But you also cannot prove that the Black Swan doesn't Yes, okay, fine. But then if you use that same methodology this way, I'll be honest with you guys, Can I be honest? No, no, I know, you've already said I can be honest. I want to be honest. Listen, this is my honest truth here. I sometimes with atheist,
I feel sometimes there's a double standard in their approach. I'll be honest with you, right? Maybe you can correct me. And please do correct me? Yeah. Well, sure. I I believe that, for example, simple induction, which you would accept in almost any other context? When it comes to the discussion of theology, you reject it? Even if that induction is plentiful? is incredible. It's number, you will still reject it. I don't see the reason why you should reject it. You see, look?
When if, if we find many examples of one thing, okay. When it comes to
I guess what you're trying to argue in terms of theology? No, I'm saying, look, you have to follow the logic.
Like I'm saying, I've made it, I've made a point today, guys, the point I've made is that anything with limited variables depends upon something else in order for it to exist. Now I'm saying everything that you can see around you is an example of that. Now, if we applied, if I have a billion
tried and tested, yes, a billion a trillion, tried and tested examples of something in the scientific world, from the dot until this day. Yeah.
And that was put into any kind of scientific journal, it would be seen as a very strong type of science. No, no, no, any kind of science, it would be seen as a very strong kind of science. My question is, why do you not accept what I'm saying to be a strong argument? If we would accept it with anything else? Why?
I still have this thing of the phone. It didn't come into existence. I'm not talking about coming into existence. I'm just talking about contingency. There is a difference between contingency and causation.
Yes, I don't understand the difference. Okay. Let me let me explain. Cause you
means something, bring something, bring something else brings rise to something else. contingency is dependency is that's another synonym for dependency. So contingency, contingency and dependency are the same thing. Whereas cause is when you have something which brings rise to something else, once I'm not talking about causation, understand that you might not buy into the theory of causation, although it's everywhere. And once again, you might not buy into it No problem. I'm saying now forget about causation. Let's talk about dependency and contingency. All I'm saying is that all that which has limited variables, is contingent on something must be contingent on something else. And I
dare anyone to give me one example of the contrary of that, and I will reject the premise myself. I'll break the premise myself. I'll leave the premise myself. There's, like a finite universe. Yes. And then some of those finite variables cause another finite change, not causing something else to change? In the circle? Exactly. I don't see any I
don't see why you have to kind of
decide that the whole universe has to be created. I've not said anything about created like, I think this is a thing, try not to make a straw man of this argument.
Is something different to you? Well, to use your own argument on its side? I think part of the difficulty I have with
disagreeing with the fact that the universe
is not unlimited, is the fact that the inference therefore leads me to the fact that there is something outside.
Thank you very much. So, but but to use your own argument against you, I don't think there's any other evidence for an existence of a creator.
I must therefore, therefore, to me, there's there's
a fairly equal chance that is either I created that has created the universe, and therefore it matches what you've said, or there's not and the universe has been around forever. I understand what you're saying to me, I hear what you're saying. But I do want to say this to you.
Bill, is built with her. Listen to me. Yeah.
What you've just said there seriously, uncovered for me the psychological reasoning as to why you're giving this argument such a stretch in this kind of assessment.
The reason why you're doing it is not because of the value or the strength of the argument. It's exactly because of what you've said. You've just said, if you think about what you just said, You said that the reason why I don't want to grant you this premise is because it will necessitate an external independent force.
That is not a reason. So in other words, you don't you don't believe because you don't want to believe
exactly what it means. That's exactly right.
Evidence, apart from that one concept that you're saying,
there's more evidence, I will be happy to leave. I'm not like anti the idea of believing if there was more evidence, I would be happy to. But But your your, this this argument,
that there's there's two strands that there's two possibilities. Yeah, one is the second one is that the universe is been here for eternity. And therefore, a much is cosmetic, and there has not been a creator. But even if it was there for eternity doesn't mean.
The other possibility is that the universe has not been here for eternity, and therefore there might be a creative. No, that's a false dichotomy.
But to me, there's one of them
even if the universe was
even if the universe was here, forever, even if we believe there was referred to as eternal inflation model, even if we believed in the oscillating contraction of the contracting of the university, you know, contraction then
even believe in all that, it does not negate the fact that it has limited variables. eternality and time does not mean
unlimited. Yes, it does not mean infinity in variable. I agree. So here, the time aspect, which you keep referring to is not applicable to contingency and might be applicable granted to causation, but it's not applicable to contingency or dependency. What I'm saying to you guys is this is a dependency. This is it. Because there's something's been around for eternity, then it's not the thing to exist. No. Look,
once again, you're referring to time.
You're saying it's something that's been around forever, it doesn't apply something else to exist.
That's not true. Because you can have something you can have two entities that will run forever.
You can have two entities that were there around forever. One is the