Channel: Mohammed Hijab
It was one way, I will say another one is, what you're saying is you're gonna determine what is the truth? It's not because somebody says it's the truth, you have to find out whether it is true. Let me finish my ways, right. So I said that you can either do it and you can either Intuit it. So in other words, it can be something intuitive, like the existence of man. It can either be something which is logically reasoned, like, for example, from first principles, and I would put underneath that or next to it mathematics, mathematical truths. Okay. Right. So I would say mathematical truths are also something which, which can be proven if you put things together one way or another,
regardless of the category. Yeah, yeah, you're finding there are ways to find out what is true. Right. And I would argue that you can do that the important point there, yes. Is that you don't call it truth. If you can't show that it's true. Absolutely. Would it be dishonest? Yes. To claim something. That's true. Yes. Yes. So that's where I draw the line. I may believe something very strongly, but I won't say it's the truth. Unless I can show that it's true. Right? Because I think it's dishonest. I'll be honest with you, Aaron, is I believe that our conception because I know that you might. So I apologize.
Or sorry, I apologize. I understand that you might have to go quick. Yeah, well, we'll make this very quick. So I understand that you might have encountered a lot of christian fundamentalists and things like that. I want to say from an Islamic perspective, our conception of God, a lot that you've got on your shirt right, is completely different from that of the Christian God. Right? And that is not for you. It's not Jesus being, you know, God or the Son of God. So what I would say is that bearing that in mind, and bearing in mind that our understanding of God is an incorporeal, immaterial one necessary being, which is independent. I would say that that can be proved from first
principles error. And I can prove that to you right now. you prove God. Yeah. from first principles. And I'm not saying God exists in the vernacular, once again, thinking about
all these eminent philosophers who are atheist. How is that possible? No, it's possible that people can believe in our false beliefs, right? Yeah, just because just because people are believing.
I'm talking to
anyone, anyone can make a claim. All you have to ask me, I want to invite you to something, if you don't mind. Yeah, I do a semi regular video series where I read a few stories of the Quran, right? I wrote a blog post. So my impression of them, I'm only a third of the way into the bank. Right. And then I have a video hangout with a number of up to this point, they've been mostly ex Muslims, I have one believe.
And they correct me on what I got wrong. So I don't know anything about the Hebron series as much as I can get, you know, I'm happy to. I'm happy to assist with that. Right? Yeah. And I'll give you my number for you leave. But while I'm about to leave, I just want to say one, one thing, and then you can kind of challenge it if you want. What I was gonna say is, do you agree that there are contingent things in existence, things that depend upon other things for their existence? And things which could be arranged in any other way?
No, not sure that, for example, right, you're wearing a T shirt, the T shirt that you're wearing? Has it depends on some kind of material, and it could be rearranged in any way it could be blue could have been green or yellow.
Right? So those things are in existence, contingent things, possible things are in existence, contingent possible things. Yes.
If it's possible, now, here's my here's my, here's my posture. Here's my postulation. My only postulation. Today, my postulation is that it's impossible for there to be a world where there are only possible things in existence. And I'll tell you why I how I reasoned that. I reasoned that I reasoned that. I just disagree. We can talk about I want to hear your reasoning. Well, you don't have to agree or disagree What?
You already believe in God, right?
You don't have to believe this good judgment. I'm speaking Tyron if you don't mind. So while I was gonna say was, the reason why only possible things cannot be in existence, is because you'll have the absurdity of dependent things, depending of depending upon dependent things, ad infinitum. So you have compounding the dependency. In other words, there's no necessary reason for anything to come into existence in particular. So in other words, my postulation is as follows. My postulation is that there must be a necessary being through which all other dependent things, all other contingent things depend on in order for there to be any existence in the first place. Now, here's
my question to you if you say there must be a necessary technology that's necessary, right? It must be. But you have
also said it could be a world where there are only possible things. I'll tell you why that's implying that there's a world where there are impossible things. No, no, no, no, absolutely not. So okay, you got three categories, right? Absolutely. Right. You've got impossible things like a squared circle, which cannot be in existence. We agree with that right? mean, you agree a squared circle cannot exist in the real world. Then you have things which are contingent things which are possible things which could have otherwise been differently, or which if you take out of creation, the creation doesn't collapse.
These things are dependent things, that contingent things, all right, then you have, and this is what my postulation is you must have a necessary being that puts all other contingent things into existence and through which it can depend on otherwise you have the absurdity of dependent things depending upon dependent things, ad infinitum. Now, what I'm saying is as simple as this, right, from my perspective, I could not imagine it's not possible, I would say it's logically unfeasible from a epistemological perspective, for there to be a world with only dependent things.
Can you explain how there could be a world with only dependent things? And
first of all, that's, that's.
Yeah, even Yeah, even when we have Cindy osis, there's an evolution to get there. Right. Right.
Right, so So what I'm saying is no problem. So would you agree with me that there's a necessary existence that puts all the possible things into existence? No. Why not? This is no indication, no, no, there is no indication of is what do you know what the indication of that is? And let me tell you what the indication is. So say, for example, let me put this in mathematical terms. Say you have a series you
know, you know, you don't know, right? So you say you have a series. And and in that series, you have possible things in that series. Possible. One possible two possible call it dependent thing, contingent thing wherever you want to call it. You
have a series? Yes. Like I said,
a series a series is
that I'm explaining to you. I'm using a cosmological example, right, which is an example which makes reference to the universe, but putting it in mathematical terms. Right.
Very good. That's good. So what I'm saying is that, for example,
what I'm saying is, is very simple, right? If you have a number of false premises, then you're gonna get to a false conclusion. That's what I'm reading. So okay, so premise one impossibles, or let's say, postulation. One impossible, things can't be in existence. A square circle can't be in existence. Agreed. Agreed. All right. Impossible, impossible. possible thing? Like, for example, this is not ny on it, right? Sorry.
New York right. Now, this hat could have had en la? Yes. It could have had en la right, it could have been a blue, it could have been a green hat. Now that so in other words, this cap that he's got in his head is a possible contingent thing. You I'm sure you're aware of this, this argument, right? Okay, I'm sure. Right, wondering if it's gonna go nothing, no. And yet, you didn't have to exist right now unnecessary fact is two plus two equals four. Agreed? Because that fact two plus two equals four could not be any other way.
All right. But we're not changing. We're not changing the axiom, because that's the only person who is not we're not saying we're not changing. Well, we could go to go to we can go to and then that, but for the sake of argument was saying two plus two equals four, unless you want to really make this an absurd argument or go crazy, okay, is two plus two equals four is a necessary fact. So in other words, eternally going to be two plus two is always going to be four. Okay? Right. So unnecessary fact is something which could not be any other way. Okay, in the context of existence, what I'm saying is that you have possible existences, and you must have a necessary existence.
Because Because if you have only possible existences, which could be any other way, then it's conceivable that this world would have been any other way. This universe could have been any other way. Just within this galaxy. Yeah, there are. So there must
be other ways, probably out there. Perfect. So you're agreeing that this universe could have been any other way?
No, I'm saying that there's all kinds of variations. Yeah. Right. So you'll do that, right.
There's a gap between the necessary being and God.
Even if established for you.
That's the thing. No, no, I'm not saying Christianity. I'm saying theism. Even if you say
to an atheist, No, I'm saying I'm saying just because I just want clarification. Yeah, you can establish the necessary existence of this be okay. Right. But that doesn't mean that there has to be. We haven't done that yet with him. So can we do that in the properties of God?
That's a separate discussion. joshy. And you can have that side effect if you're trying to prove God to an atheist and you're D converted good Christian.
Documents because I don't think the ontological audience
that's fine. That's fine. But you understand now the point I'm making to you is, if you have a world of only possible existences, nothing held course nothing. The only thing you could have. No, you can't have that. When you can only have a world of possible it's because Okay, you can't have impossible he says no, no, no, no, no, you're juxtaposing the word. possible with impossible
I agree with you. That's correct. We weren't necessary. Yes. Yeah, exactly. Right. But I mean, yes. Go ahead. Apart from mathematical truths. Yes. Yes. Because you've got a logical system of axioms we've built up. What do you consider a necessary? thing? All right, excellent. So that's a really good question. So we said two plus two equals four is unnecessary fact, it will always be two plus two equals four eternally, right? necessary, necessary because it couldn't be any other way.
What's your name? What's your name? Julia is not growing. By the way. It's not everything. This is not what I call it. This is what life let's call it is what God who calls it is what
it calls it as well, because everybody said this calls it necessary existence. So it's not I'm not calling it anything. I'm just bringing you back in the literature, regardless of the name,
anybody you might have read, you have to understand the argument and be able to convey that. It doesn't matter that some other people I've written a book on it, actually, it's called Kalam cosmological arguments. You can you can buy it if you want, especially on the atheist atheist section itself. We're taking The God Delusion. So I think I have actually understood the argument has been peer reviewed as well, you can check out
not my fault you mentioned, but you're meant to be an atheist specialist. And you're right, you're right. So if you don't understand the argument, you're one of the figures of new figureheads of new atheism. If you don't understand the argument, then there's only one thing I can do is I can try and relay the argument. But it's not it's not my fault. Not let me say one more time. Let me make it as easy as possible. Right. Say, say you have a phone. This is a phone. Okay.
Yes. Okay. Let me make this as simple as possible. Is it dependent on something? It's dependent on charge? I have to put the charger inside. Yes. The existence of the phone isn't dependent on the existence. Yeah, the functioning. Were just good. Excellent. Thank you for any better from here. Yeah, it does. You have to be patient, because I'm losing that I should have gone already. Aaron, if I was listening to something you're saying I was trying to get what you're saying. Right? We will have to be patient with each other for learning to take place. If you had time, then all I had time, then this phone has charged. Okay, if you put a requires a charger in order to be charged. Now say
for example, I connect this phone to another phone? Yes, with a wire. I put this phone to another phone. So on a wire right? You got this phone, another phone and a wire right. And then you go that phone withdrawal from the wire. So you got three phones, right? You have three phones? If you have three phones, what will eventually happen to the functionality of the phones that the charge will run out? Would you agree with me?
Okay, can you allow me to finish? I'm just you're just poisoning the world.
Everyone can see what you're doing. And you know,
as a Christian, you should just have a discussion.
About what is it good or wrong? No, no, let me let me make it. clarify the point. Let me let me say that Josh, let me speak about let me make the argument. And then you can judge I was in the middle of
whatever you finish? Well, you haven't you haven't even finished? If you don't let someone finish? And then you say it's no good, then that's actually this ingenuity. All right. So you've got three phones. Say for example, one of them got charged, right? So I connect this phone to another phone and this phone to another phone. Now what will happen if I connect all three of them, to allow them all to charge using each other's energies? Eventually, they all run out of charge. We all agree. And the reason why is because they're all dependent.
They all depend The phone is depend the charge of the phone, the analogy here is the charge of the phone, the charge of the phone is dependent, yes. Now what I'm saying is, if you have a world only have limited,
I would call it limited dependent things, all of them will depend upon another thing. And if this is in the context of existence, you will not have existence because you have to have something which depends upon nothing in order for everything else to exist.
Does that make sense? So in other words, in our in our example, analogy, you have to have an infinite power source. What does it depend on for existence? So we going back to what we just said, the necessary existence, that existence that Yeah.
Now what I'm saying is now what I've shown is that possible, or contingent things, by definition are dependent a phone, this phone is dependent on another phone for charge that phone on another phone for charge, if we connect them right now, one, just let me finish. If you have three of them, if you have five of them, if you have 10 of them, then they're all gonna be dependent on each other. Now, what's gonna eventually happen on the with the phones, they're going to run out of charge. What I'm saying to you is that the functionality of the phones charge here is analogous to existence in my analogy, and also not a perfect analogy. You could you could destroy the analogy if you want. But
what I'm saying is that this is my only thing that I can try and bring it closer to you. So if things which are dependent dependent upon dependent things ad an ad infinitum, unless there's an infinite power source somewhere in the equation, there will not be any existence. And what I'm saying is that the infinite power source if you like,
all the necessary existence that we refer to is God. And now we call it God. What is not an infinite power source? It can't be right. It has to be what? Because otherwise nothing else would be in existence.
Yeah, going God, what is
this one? You get?
energy from the sun? Yes. Yes. Good. Excellent input. Now a very good example. So we're in for example, well and ecosystem, right? You've got human beings, you've got animals, whatever you want. All of that is dependent upon the sun. Yes. The sun itself is not infinite. But the sun itself is dependent upon other things. What?
No other suns other galaxies are independent. It depends on the laws of physics, it's dependent upon a range of factors helium, if you didn't have helium, you can have a sun, you have to have different if you break down the sun, we agree. Right? So the sun is dependent, and we agree up. Now is
Julia, can we can we stick? Sorry, sorry, before you before you continue? Let's say he understands this, or I just want him to fully understand the argument. He's He's already noted that what you said is that the sun is, is not dependent on something else we've shown actually is right. So the whole universe now, there's only two ways you can go.
No problem. Is the universe dependent or independent? The way that you're talking about the sun having to have fuel, and
if I take that, yep, yep. Then it The sun is dependent on other things. Yes, fine. It's perfect. So Excellent. Excellent. Not. Right, right. So same thing now. So what we need to have because that chain will continue going. Dependent things can depend upon dependent things ad infinitum, you have to have something which is necessary. Yeah, of course, what I'm saying is that there is an impossible, it's logically inconceivable that dependent things can depend upon dependent things, ad infinitum. All I'm saying is that they're not infinite.
proves to me that
I'm out of here.
In and you prove to me that they don't
come Come to me, you're the one trying to prove something to me, the burden of proof is
yours. You've just made a claim, as you said that.
You said, You said you said that particles don't depend on anything. Can you prove that? No, I've said that for your argument to hold, I need to show that fundamental particles don't depend on anything. Okay. All right. So here's the thing, what you what you and Aaron couldn't deal with? Is this, the new atheist view of the new atheist movement is crumbling right in front of me one by one every single one of the penalty with this argument. And by the way, it's I can't believe it was like, you know, it really all it took was just a little bit of bringing out an argument and the whole new atheist movement in front of my very eyes,
make your arguments and no, no, I will make my argument you do grandstanding?
grandstanding go preach. And
so what I was gonna say, is you use it
depends on any fundamental cause.
I'm telling, I'm telling you that for your argument to hold, you need to show that fundamental particles don't depend on injury. So you said you, you said right here right now and it was on the camera. Like I say, I believe that that's the case. Okay. Can you
know, because I'm telling you that you need to show that that fundamental particles depend on something, okay. They depend upon the laws of nature.
No, no, no, they mean, they depend on the law laws of physics,
which are presupposed by the study of science. Can you tell me what the laws of physics are? There are many if you want to go and see a book on it, I'll tell
you to tell me what you think. Because physicists don't know.
Someone who studied physics. Yeah, you're still an undergrad, right? Yes. Okay. So your your first year. Alright, so someone like Martin recently wrote a book on just six numbers. Okay, so we should go because this is a person who's actually outlined the six fundamental constants, or among them, for example, n, n equals nature, he actually calls it a n for nature. And he says that that is that's what he was talking about. The numbers that detail the vegetables, though, he mentioned the numbers, he and those are numbers of mathematics other than physics, physics.
What university? Okay, so I'm sure you're clever enough to know that when when physics when mathematics is applied to the cosmos, is what is called physics. you've just
done that. So you know, you know the deal, right? So I don't have to tell you that. I mean, I'm a physicist, but you should know this. Well, I knew that physics is an attempt to mathematically describe the universe.
So good. You got six numbers, you said what are the rules that we can be described in different ways
numbers except for him. And he's got a equals
n equals major, which you said is mathematically meaningless.
They actually give a number which is 0.07.
What significance is 0.07? is a cool physics one mathematics applied to Universal Law. Yes. Okay. So when he says 0.07 is a number, which is applied to the universe, is that? Is that physics applied to the universe? Well, he looks at Whoa, look at he, for example, right? Yes.
Right. So he says that that's the conversion of helium into energy, for example.
I mean, if we took
episode, epsilon, epsilon gets used for lots of different things. So he used it in his own way, and he gets it, he gets his own articulation. Go check the preference for the introduction. Okay. What are you seeing right now? There are seven numbers which are important. Six, six. Okay.
How does this relate to the fundamental? Your question was that particles don't depend on anything. They're independent. I'm saying to you, I'm saying you have to show that. Do you believe that particles are independent of what you said? Just don't? Please don't retract your argument. Because I'm watching this, Josh. This is what Christian missionaries need to learn. Now, you're saying that particles are independent? Yes.
best of my knowledge, yeah.
Like, what I'm basing this off is the standard model, the best model we have for the universe right now. is incomplete or physics. Perfect. Right.
Now, you said that particles, fundamental particles don't depend on every anything
composed of anything else? No, no, you said, Unless we retract that statement, which is what every atheist does when they're in front of me. Now, you said that fundamental particles don't depend on anything. I believe that to be the case. I do not claim that it's perfect. Now, do you believe that fundamental particles don't depend on anything? I believe that to be the case, I'm not claiming. Thank you for saying that. Because now what you've shown is that you believe in the existence of an independent being. But the only thing is,
the only thing is fundamental. No, no, no, no, no, no, no problem, what you accept, because before you were saying there was no such thing as a necessary thing, you're saying now, there is no hold on? Julie, I you're going to retract your statement, because that's what every atheist does in front of me. You said?
It's on camera, you said you believe you just saw it for a minute to two minutes ago, you just said you believe the fundamental particles are not dependent on anything. By definition, what you're effectively saying is you believe fundamental particles are independent. Now what I'm saying
what I mean, when I say fundamental particle, you mean,
I'm just explaining what the standard model says. Right? Okay. Go ahead. And, uh, mentally, yeah, according to quantum field theory, fundamental particles are essentially just energy spikes in your belief and
energy. Truly, you shouldn't have come into there and tried to challenge me, because what you've done No, seriously, you should really think about it before you come assigned to make claims.
You need to show me show you anything. You shouldn't have come here, because what you've done now is you've given me exactly what I wanted. In the beginning, you said that I have to prove that as a necessary independent being. Now you've just said you believe that fundamental particles are not dependent on your words. Exactly. You believe you said I believe fundamental particles are not dependent on anything. Now all I'm saying as a Muslim, is that my, my understanding?
Let me see me on, let me finish. Let me finish your God.
Yeah, your God is, is that the only difference between my God and your God is sighs that's the only difference. That is, honestly, you need to understand you're not an atheist anymore. In front of me. I've converted you straight to Islam.
To believe in is the right attributes of God. And the Prophet Muhammad is the messenger. And obviously, if you wanna believe in Jesus,
listen to me. You said that.
you've given me exactly what
you said that you believe that particles are independent. That's what she said not dependent on anything. That's the definition of independence. Now, if you believe in an independent entity, now, let me tell you something from historic perspective. And you have to understand this.
context. Wait a minute, you said not dependent on anything? How can someone How can something be not dependent on anything?
Yes, please. I think the word dependent is very misleading because it's like, fundamentally, even inside the Standard Model things that like are interdependent, they just interdependent on a fundamental level. And the thing is, I know that the Standard Model isn't complete. So there is some deeper layer somewhere.
Oh, yeah, interdependent. So what's fundamental particles are interdependent. Everything relies on.
As I said, particles are essentially just expressions of energy interaction.
Thank you, you're contradicting yourself. Because interdependence entails dependence. If you're saying that fundamental particles are interdependent, you're saying is dependent. And you said that's not a
contradiction either you want