Channel: Mohammed Hijab
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
In this conversation, I'm telling you that
it must be a cause of knowledge and power and the ability to change the situation.
depends upon something else. And there must be one independent thing.
So your arguments from ontology, the ontological argument,
the fine tuning arguments, that everything is so finely tuned that everything is so precisely measured, the gravitational constant of the electromagnetic culture that hadn't been
different than the universe wouldn't exist in the way it was. And it wouldn't maintain the human for any life.
That's fine. I don't I don't want to go. Because I feel like, let me tell you why. And I've made this horrible before.
First and foremost, for the people. And for him, for him, because we've said this before, and we know the
Okay, trust me.
Let me tell you something.
I want to put this into layman's terms. I want to say something, everyone.
in speaker's corner. Hey, how you doing? Good. Yeah. Nice to meet you.
Just about God's existence. So imagine we're here and
we see a big ball over there. What are you talking about?
He wants to know,
Your friends here. Sorry. He said to you.
What do you say to him? Was this cool, wasn't it?
So, you turn around to it? Or he Sorry? He turns around to you.
It was always that.
Would you say that?
If I haven't seen it before,
we know that that can't be the case. So you go by to that guy says give me another explanation. So it says no, this is this is one of an infinite amount of balls that existed.
I mean, please just appeal to my common sense. Where did the ball come from? So you go back to this man?
And he says, You look the porn.
I would say Well, probably the first thing I would question if he says there was always been
Okay, good. We completely disagree. One of us, either, I hadn't I didn't see it, that would completely change my life.
Which which one is the most reasonable? Exactly. So you say to him, I don't believe in you. Right? So he's gonna say, Okay.
Give me something simple that I can understand. Where did the ball come from? Then he turns around, he says, You know what?
But he says, the ball always was the ball, just just leave it.
This corner, all we see is a hovering boy. You want to ask him where the ball has come from? You ask him he has the ball. He says it's always been there. Then he says there was an infinite amount of balls. And then he says, you know, the pool just is
what the Book Creator itself is actually the Book Creator. So
I'm sorry, but I really don't get your example.
If he sent you the book.
Are you making the argument for the Rooney
Rule for now?
And also, it's also growing? Yeah, what what were you gonna say to yourself? Well, I would say FMO is hovering over my head. And I've never heard of that defies the laws of physics is growing, it is magical. And he tells me he has created itself and
he said to you, I know that
was created by and then he started telling you the characteristics of let's say, a technological company in Japan. And he says this Paul has been trained by XYZ as a creator
Would you take that with you?
Yes. Okay, fine. So All of the explanations, let me tell you something, even
though we live in a
new space, that's what we're living in now.
It's a simplistic,
insignificant sentence being placed on a rock, called
a planet called the earth, in a solar system in the Milky Way in the universe. That's what we are.
Simply spoken, we are on where side the Buddha described, if you were to ask the question, Where did the ball come from? atheists will say, most of us
existed in some kind of contraction and expansion.
itself, or the ball made itself all the foreigners who is there to say about the universe, what can you say? Or you can say the born creator, which has intelligence,
that intelligent creation
arguments is the most coherent Now, can we apply that to the universe? And if not, why not?
So the main differences is,
yes, this role is non natural light. So anything that is non natural is by definition, this is
natural. Human beings are natural limitations. Just because you have not seen something before, it doesn't mean it's not natural.
You mentioned the assumption that there isn't a natural latent, very reasonable.
I mean, just the fact that you'd have to describe what the board looks like. But I've just told you so for a board that's going Yeah, exactly.
Like you said, it sounds like a technology. So you would assume it's
just one second, that's the distinction that I make. Is your tell me why you don't believe the fall of the universe has a creation creator? Why not? Give me one reason?
One reason? Yes, one reason why
there's no good evidence to suggest No, that's not good enough.
because let me tell you something.
What is evidence? What is evidence? Forget what the atheists say, there's no good evidence, there's no good evidence, what is evidence? Tell me what is evidence
Is it reasonable to say that the poor grade itself
was infinitely there, or that
it's the perfect way of putting it. The university is a pool to grow in your space. The university doesn't have intelligence. So it doesn't
To find the dictionary is when you give God the characteristics of human beings, or if you give him a being the characteristics of inanimate objects for certification.
certification is when you give inanimate objects, the characteristics of the animal of the human person.
I've just said, the goal is good, the ball is growing. And it's hovering. That's not the sort of thing. I haven't said it's smiling, is crying.
If you have these options, you have a pool.
Okay, I'm sure you have a poll that's hovering in speaker's corner, you have options, either the ball stretching itself, or the ball was always that all the ball was it was one of an infinite amount of balls.
Which of those options would you say? He said, the first one. I say
no, I said, I said why don't we have the same exact inference for the universe? Which exactly
why give me what I just told you why because every natural thing from my perspective, but just
by men or looks like this.
Everything that is naturally assumed is designed by God. I'm only taking away one day
assignment, which is called
9% of what exists in the universe
is design according to music.
But you believe that the universe is random
design, if it's not intentional design, what is it? What's really cool?
Okay, so is it random, random nature now you're personifying nature, either nature is either nature is, is a non intelligent actor, or is an intelligent,
evolution, random mutations, except randomness.
that randomness exists today, I'm ready to accept whatever you say, I want you to prove that.
I don't actually believe in Brendan,
it's possible, I'm saying there's, like, for example,
randomness that you have in catching those not actual randomness, there's algorithm behind Let me tell you something about randomness. And I want you to remember that someone told me this.
randomness is a label that human beings put on things they don't understand.
Wait a minute.
randomness is a label that human beings put on things they don't understand.
When a child looks at the stars, he sees a random heap of jumbled celestial bodies in the night sky.
To the sky, he sees constellation.
The child, the stars are random for the astronomer
in constellation, now, if you want to tell me that the universe is randomly designed, I want you to prove that to me, first of all, that randomness exists. There's nothing to be you're telling me to prove God exists. You're telling me now.
I'm gonna do that. I'm not gonna do that.
I want you because now you put in place of God's nature, which is actually known intelligent actor, which uses this thing called randomness, which I don't even know exists. So please,
agree, I think
what we mean by running limitations may not necessarily be random, but there's a natural
place to run them in the sense that imitation in itself has no function.
But it was what it wanted us to do.
For us, it will stay there.
It's not it's not
depending on the environment, it comes up before and the environments Alexa.
It's just a term.
We're going back to our poll are hovering the hovering ball which you have accepted?
The best explanation for it is a creator and intelligence.
Now, we have a whole room full, which is still the universe. Why cannot accept the same logic based on your own influence with the hovering ball? That wasn't the speaker's corner scenario.
For you, guys, because the universe
is bigger than the
Tell me why you don't believe in the creator of the
depends on the boy which like, I would even go as far as to say, if the pool was hovering,
it wouldn't be far fetched for me to say that was a human being that meter or a group of human beings. I mean, why is intelligence the same
reason? Okay, the assumption that we make
it's human design. We don't say, Oh, it's a design because it has to be designed. We assume that sounds like something.
But you see what I mean, is, you're making a false analogy. Why? Because
we see in our everyday life with the experience that we have, with our understanding of human technology and human minds, we were
not created by
if anything, we might think I don't know why.
that was floating on. Yeah, I would just say something, or someone created it with intelligence. Would you do that?
all upset about it.
So this is the point. This is where the evidence comes in. I agree with a lot of
phenomena, we look at data, I will make
the best explanation. If I saw haystack, rolling around, I know
if it cools down if it comes down to
That particular exactly why so it's because of your definition of the rule that I asked you.
Now we look at the definition of the universe, it fulfills the same two criterias
which is expanding, and which is floating in space. So I'm telling you, why don't you believe in the creator?
Can you prove to me that something like the universe cannot have a creator? Give me something
Going back to
university, which has no.
Yes, yes. But it's the same. It's the same. It's the same because humans are finely tuned as well. So we understand that.
But let me tell you the main difference. I'm not gonna waste my time we were talking about biology, because that's not what I'm talking about. We're talking about inanimate objects. And yes, I do on this app, I suppose that suppose you're conflating sciences, that there was a fine line, there was a distinction. It was a line of demarcation between physics, chemistry and biology.
No, there is a there is a line of demarcation between those two, that's why they study differently in different institutions. Now, the point is this, what I'm giving you what I'm giving you an example of cosmology. You can't say, Well, here's my example. Apologies.
If I'm talking about logic,
the main difference between Darwinian logic
logic if we're talking about
biology, you can say
you can say survival of the fittest you can say, intelligence, but with inanimate things. You cannot say those words. They don't apply to the dictionary of physics.
There's no symptoms.
wrote, as far as I know,
do rocks evolve?
Do rocks evolve?
If I put a rock somewhere, will it change? Yes, I'm not talking about erosion and sedimentation. I'm talking about a biological perspective.
environment would have an impact.
Well, I'm talking about the rock,
In the classification is the rock in the cut in the table of classification, where we couldn't say okay, this is the cousin's
Let me tell you
why I genuinely believe the following.
There is a psychological block.
for both of you, I've had this conversation with my genuine
rationality has nothing to do with that whatsoever. That is a genuine psychological block. Something happens. Something happens in your life.
You know, maybe you had a bad experience in church, but something happened.
just because they don't.
Look into the dictionary.
You'll find the word for it.
It giving you
using a naturalistic framework.
Let me answer this question, right. We all have fun projects.
You feel things
I'm sensing your sense here.
Okay. I want you to materialistic
the phenomena of the universe. Anything