Channel: Mohammed Hijab
with you. Okay, so. So here, I was asked the question. So if we see a hover and ball that's expanding in any area, so we walk in speaker's corner, what would we say about this hovering?
Okay, good. Excellent. So hey, I would ask the question, the universe is an expanding ball. Yeah.
If you accept the idea of redshift and expand the universe of Big Bang Theory, and the second law of thermodynamics,
how are you?
Okay, okay. So if that's what we accept, yeah. So the question will be okay, so we've got a ball that's expanding, which is the universe has a cause. Now, let's, with the process of deduction on inference, let's try and see what what is the nature of the course? Yeah, history.
So what is the nature of the cause?
Why is causing that ball to be even in the first place? Okay, science. Yeah. Why science? Science is the combination on
gaseous particles molecules that go to
the Big Bang?
Do you agree that science is applicable to the 3d world that we live in the universe that we live in?
So So, this is a trick question? I'm gonna say yes. So for instance, like that we live in a universe, right. And this universe site, I will say that I don't know who to find that does, but I think it's a very good definition. Science is the study of the patterns and regularities of the universe.
Yes, that's not my definition.
right. So if we're talking about pre Big Bang, we're not talking about the universe. Why not?
pre Big Bang.
was out there.
Right. But what if we're saying that the Big Bang, the singularity led to the expanding universe that exists now, then, naturally, that which came before the big bang was not within the context of the universe? Then it could have been something else? We've just found out?
Because a curved curved
slab, Paul, and
so what I've been teaching has been wrong, because science has finally caught up.
So I feel that
First of all, first and foremost, you I feel like you've given agencies to science sciences, is not something that is something you do.
It's something you do, yeah.
accepted. Agreed. Agreed. Sorry.
But science is not a willed, being that causes things to be
an overarching study, isn't it?
Okay, good. So science is how we size and how we see right? The universe and how we kind of how we see the patterns of the universe. And we can break it down to like physics, chemistry and biology, etc. Yeah. Okay, good. So from that perspective, I will say to you is that when we talk about the cause of the universe, we're talking about, would you agree that we will talk about a will of some sorts?
Yeah, I wouldn't know why. Because I don't think there is a real behind.
Would you accept I agree.
But I don't think there's a real creator, because I don't believe they
would create a world.
Okay, but before we get to that, before we get
I'll say to you that if we're saying before the universe, there was a course and that the inside universe should accept that because science By the way, if we're saying science is just within the universe, we're accepting that patterns exist within the universe. Alright, so we're looking at the universe within like, we see the patterns of the universe, right? If there are patterns and laws, you'd accept the laws of physics, yeah.
So my question
right, good. All right. So we accept that the rules of physics Yeah.
I would you accept that these laws of physics are complicated. Would you say that they are simple.
Really, how do you define complexity and simplicity. I was just wondering
So if it's, if it's complex, if we accept that there are laws of physics, which are complex, my question is, how did they come into being? And you accept that there's no such thing as random generations. You said that just now.
Okay, let's move on. Move aside die devil will now Okay, I'm asking the question is the cause intelligent or non intelligent?
Okay, so my question or intelligent design. So my question to you is, how could you have a complex universe without intelligence behind it? Because?
Well, you have
to, if you accept
evolution is something that we look at, in the biological realm. Yeah.
Okay, okay. Except biological. sexual reproduction is biological, right? So if it's something that we see on a level, which is biological, here, we're talking about the inanimate so this is not we haven't reached the ambeo abiogenesis. yet? Not yet. We haven't reached that word chemistry because biology, we're still at the stage where it's actually inanimate objects. celestial bodies. Yeah. Which don't, haven't you see what I'm saying?
So my question is, how did the How did the laws of physics come to be in that context? How is it that we have complex rules of physics? In the context of the universe? What's your explanation for it? That's my question.
Okay, good. Okay, fairies, is that more than one fairy or one fairy? One fairy, Okay, perfect.
No, this what I'm saying?
No, no. One thing is, just because we don't understand.
you're imposing they doesn't know. Because you don't know. So maybe she listened to him.
doesn't impose that you don't know you.
Okay, that's a good question. What is knowledge?
How do we know what is?
What makes you so sure that you know that? Okay, so this is a question of knowledge. So I've really epistemology, so I would say,
no microphones, they can hear you trust me as
well, as I said, All right. So I'll say
knowledge, right? How do you know that you exist?
Even if you weren't a dream, you'd be either someone's dream, or you'd be a dream, right? So that would prove existence. Because
if you if you if you were a dream, right, if you were a dream, you know, how they cause it, I think, therefore, I am he this. This is called the Cogito. Yeah, this could you tell was attacked by Nietzsche, who wrote Beyond Good and Evil? I think he wrote in it.
That How can you put How can you presuppose I can say you can't presuppose I because I is, obviously it's a pronoun, it's a personal pronoun, can't presuppose it. So I'd agree with that criticism. It's a good point. It's a strong criticism from Nietzsche. That's why post modernism is quite powerful.
I feel like every time I start getting a handle on this conversation,
I'm coming to how do we know?
All right. So so I can't come back with any I'm saying. I'm saying Jude is so useful, but how do we know? Yeah, because this question of knowledge. Yeah, my I put this to you. Because I've
said the problem that I see the solution, the solution is this. I believe that the reasoning we as human beings employ to know things or not know things is probabilistic. So in other words, I know
Yeah. So in the sense that Okay, I have a epistemic probabilistic reasoning. Yeah, that happens on a daily basis.
For instance, I'm holding this. I'm holding this cup. Yeah. Which is whatever. Yeah, I know, I can say with certainty, I'm holding this cup. I'm here and I'm holding this cup. Why? Because, for me, epistemologically, my y classes knowledge is not necessarily that which reaches 100% threshold. So for me that even though there might be a 1% chance that okay, I might not be here, and I might be asleep right now. But I will say probabilistically, based on my experience, and based on the fact that I trust my senses, that's my presupposition. I'll say, Okay, I'm here, and I'm holding this, to get it so. So based on the evidence is I put all those evidences together to come up with this kind
of aggregate probability. And that happens subconsciously with us on a daily basis. And then I say, Okay, this is or this isn't. So in the context of the universe, I, me personally, I do the same things, I look at them the law and order of the universe, if you will, to the laws of physics, the complicated laws of physics, exist within the concepts of universe. And then I'll say, okay, probabilistically, looking at the options that we have, you can either have done this came from randomness, which we both reject, or it came from nothing, which we both reject, or that was a chain of XML of universes, which we will not have any evidence for, or that it was caused into being
buying intelligence. So would you say that that is the most appropriate of
the evidence is the cause itself? So I believe in causation? Yeah, but you just said there's no evidence.
you're basing it on cause and effect, right? So look, I don't need to see the fact that someone who see that horse's head dead. I've only seen
this is quite interesting. It's the green thing. Because the horse's head, a Marble Arch, okay.
Or maybe many, many, many, many, many women.
Usually, an engineering architecture is dominated by men, so it's probably men. Is it?
That one? I don't think so. I agree with that.
So I don't need to see that construct the construction, the architecture take place, right?
To know that it's made by a designer, or an intelligence. Now the same thing applies with human design.
Probably a human. Okay, so humans.
Okay, you go, I'm saying hi to all right. So in the call center universe,
I believe that everything around the buildings, the vehicle,
was made by humans. I believe they were made.
Because of what he said.
He's talking about
things he's talking about, like cameras.
Simple engineering, it's not something I promise you something.
Do you accept this what I'm saying to you?
I'm saying, Okay, this is the universe. Okay. We accept that. It's got complicated laws
of physics, right. Except that.
So you believe is a superposition?
is a good point? Because you're saying that, yeah, because what you're saying is that the nature of the fact that science is changing, indicates that we don't have all the answers in terms of laws.
Well, what I'm saying on a basic teal teleological level, yeah, on a fine tuning level, on a basic fine tuning level, I'm saying that
on a basic level that the universe exists, and whether it be through aesthetic judgment, or through a complicated process of science, whoever it may be, we can appreciate the fact that the universe exists with this complex, complicated mechanisms attached to it all these complicated motions.
Yeah, yeah. Why?
Why don't you just continue to learn? Well, how do you know that that's not part of his design?
So we're finding out things we're saying these trees reproduce asexually.
When he could just create things?
Well, this question. So I would say to look for you to understand that you'd have to know from like, for example, I'm coming honestly from an outside perspective and the attributes of God from an Islamic perspective. So okay, so cyberspace
The attributes of God is that we believe is one that is all powerful. That is all knowledgeable. That is all knowing, and that he's a sustainer, maintain, etc. Okay, so that is what we will consider God, or what? So he maintains things. Yeah,
exactly. So from that angle, and that's also deducible, I would say like, logically. So if God created the universe, and the universe is contingent upon his existence, therefore everything within the universe is automatically in default, at the will of God, or the will of that entity that exists outside or is transcendent of the universe. Yeah, so it's not inside of it. Also, if you if you can do the same argument, say, say there was trees just there, someone will have white record, in a way we're replicating. And then you see there's no criteria.
The fact that we
can speak about things that have potential just
doesn't make sense.
Moving on. So this is the thesis talk, I want you guys to know the Islamic thesis. Yeah. So the Islamic thesis is this. So we will say that, instead of believing because in the Quran, it says, I'm calling woman highly shy, and I'm woman Hala Kuhn. And this is this, why you use those three or four different criteria, because it's a credit criteria. It says where they created from nothing, where they themselves are creators of themselves. So in other words, the third thing is not mentioned, because it's meant to be like, understood within the context. So if you look at looking at the looking at the possibilities of how we came into existence,
we've already ruled out that we come from can't come from nothing, and that we couldn't be self traders, because we fought for us to be self traders or for university, to self create, would have to exist to not exist at the same time, it should be a logical contradiction. So of these options, we've concluded that okay, that the idea of a creator being being the initiator of such a process, and the maintainer of it is the most.
So, so from that, that's the first point. So we will say that, after that's been established, Now, the question is, what's the purpose of life? And I want to put it this way. Yeah, I'll put it this way. Right.
I'll put it this way.
Okay, look, look, I've used this. I've used this once. Again. I've said that.
Imagine one day, yeah.
You want to go? Have you ever said it before? You're on a train? Yeah, you want to train? You wake up, you find yourself. Like on a train, on a boat, on a ship on a plane or any vehicle?
And you wake up, we see yourself and it's moving? Yeah.
What's the first question you can ask yourself?
Why am I here? Yeah. Where am I going? Is that what you agree with? Why am I here? Where am I going? What Why would you come to that conclusion, though? While we won't? Why would those be the first questions you'd ask?
So these questions, I would say, I would argue that they're intuitive. Yeah. So if we accept that the that there is time, and we're moving forward with time, and that there will be an end to our journey? Yeah. So the questions we have to ask in life are the same questions as we would ask if we were in that vehicle. In that context, you say, Why am I here? And where are we going? What am I doing here? Where's that come from? That's another question you want?
Well, that's the thing. Right?
So if you woke up on the train, and you woke up, or you started asking the passengers around you, where did I come from? Where am I here? Where am I going? And then the passage on the transition? Now listen, we don't need to know the answer. Just look for the present. Just enjoy yourself on the train. What would you say today?
Maybe, but then, on the other hand,
I would argue that the thing that distinguishes or demarcates human being from the rest of the the animals in an in an animal creatures is the ability to reason and the ability to
the ability, let me just be specific about is the ability to ask why. I would argue that I don't think on that center level.
I don't think
there might be some biological reason for that.
I think from an atheistic,
from an atheistic, biological, even evolutionary perspective, and evolutionists would answer that question or biologists would answer it that
To commit suicide, because there is a functionality for that in the context of the greater food chain, and that they want, or they've identified that.
Why Why am I?
I think we actually can ask the question, am I conscious? And we know that we're conscious.
she's right, you know?
That's right. That's right. I like I like that. That's good point. And you made a good point as well. No,
no, no, I like the consciousness point. I do like it. But you made a good point as well. There is no third person evidence to suggest that we're conscious. The only example we don't do reasoning we have is first person subjective experience. That's the only reason we can you can't put consciousness under a microscope. There's a long discussion on that. I'll make a video on this. Anyways, I
was saying was
So what I was saying was, right. So the thesis is follows, right? I haven't got into like the fullest thesis yet. So we're saying that God created the universe, etc. Okay. He maintains it sustains that he's powerful. He's got that capacity. Moreover, we will say that now, those questions if we want to ask them, are those a niche?
Those who need to ask.
as I was saying, right.
Yeah, so the question, so we say that they were intermediaries. Yeah. God communicated with the human beings through profits. So you know, Old Testament prophets, I'm sure you've heard of like, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc.
For us, we believe is a prophet. All right. So all of those prophets came with that message,
to believe in one God to worship one God and to do good works. And they also came with some kind of evidence to prove that they were prophets. Okay. So they, we also believe that human being was was created with an intuitive believer, or you can say an intrinsic, yeah. predisposition to believe in God.
So what prophets and messengers came to do was to reinforce that belief, or to remind human being of the original creation, and there is no purpose. So all of those prophets came before time of the message in the miracle, or the message and the evidence, like Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, to tell people who they are, and basically to worship and God
is your religion. So, Islam is just to Islam. Yeah.
All right. So Islam, the Prophet Muhammad from his commoner, onwards, about 1400 to four years, yeah, but when we're talking about Islam, what we consider Islam is because Islam means the Council, the advocate, Islam, Islam, Islam means submission. So it was interesting. I was used as point Rousseau says, Rousseau is a French philosopher. He says, man is born free.
Just making sure that I'm just making sure that he knows you know,
he's a man is born free.
man is born free, but everywhere and change. Yeah. We will say that everyone in the class has is that everyone is enslaved to something.
Yeah. So could
they came before that as well?
yeah, yeah. So we believe in all that, so long as humans have been on the earth, we believe that big profits?
Yes, we believe.
So we believe that all of the profits came since the beginning. Since human,
Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens. Yes.
So why human what the Samak narrative is, so long as there has been human civilization and human beings. There has been messages and prophets to tell people about the message of Islam. Okay, so that extends backwards. So Abraham was a messenger.
profit. From history we know that Mesopotamia was one of the first civilizations Yeah.
Right. So, so long as as being human beings.
What we say we say human beings we overextended. Yeah.
so that all of those profits came with that fundamental message.
I'm so that would be where we start going
to have an existential crisis. And suddenly those of you joining us.
I would say that that presupposes two things. And both of them are fallacious. Actually. It's fallacious reasoning. Let me tell you why. Yeah.
Because even if that was the case, let's just let's go with that. All right. So if I say the argument, is that okay, human being has has an existential crisis.
That's the origin.
Yeah, therefore, that is the origin of religion. Yeah. I'll say then. Okay. Then if you're saying therefore, religion is wrong, that's the genetic fallacy.
Yeah, so genetic fallacy to say that something is wrong as a result of it, because of its origins.
Which is, which is false reasoning? Yeah.
If we're saying that human being has an existential crisis, and therefore, human being has no case, religion has felt the need to ask questions like, why and whatever, like, why am I handling things? And therefore these questions are social constructs, if you will?
Yeah, it doesn't mean that.
So my point to you is this.
But it's okay. So the point I'm trying to kind of get to is this. So Islam, as a thesis of the final prophet is Prophet Muhammad. Now, the main difference between Muhammad and all the other problems that came before him and our thesis
video videos, some guy with a knife,
or a gun, you know, and a black flag behind them.
This man is talking about you know,
what I was gonna say was,
the main point of demarcation is that we will say, Mohammed, he was a universal messenger, which is mentioned in chapter seven, verse 150, of the Quran. So he was saying, for all of humankind, whereas all of the other prophets were sent for their localities in their times. That's the time and even in the Bible, if you look at like Matthew and Mark, Jesus is meant to say
So we would say, would accept that there were prophets that were probably sent to these areas? We believe in black prophets. So Moses for us was a black man. Yeah, we have Look, man who's a black man, we have to wait for us. There's a hadith that says 124,000 prophets.
So 124,000 to represent the scope of humanity a full time. So there were prophets that were you, like, for example, depictions of Jesus or kind of white. There, we have conflicting narration, some say that he's kind of brown darker than me, as some say that he is kind of like white. Mohammed was, maybe this man's color. Yeah. So the thing is, really, and truly, we have a range of different in the Islamic narrative, we have a range of different prophets, but all of them came from a variety of different countries and different places. For hammer represents the last of those. He's not white, and he's not black. He's somewhere in between, if you think about it, so why is probably maybe
because to kind of represent as much of humanity as possible, possibly from a racial perspective. But you could also say that he was centrally located because Saudi Arabia map is kind of centrally located. So the the expansion of Islam westward and eastward