How Atheists Have Faith in the Unprovable
Channel: Mohammed Hijab
File Size: 19.98MB
Excuse me, show me how you can
see the problem here. You don't see the problem, then that would make you Sorry, somebody would make you someone.
Tell us what the problem is in logic, you have something called a logical fallacy, ladies and gentlemen, the logical fallacy is let me stick with the ladies and gentlemen, cuz it's also the people around they have they need to be educated. Let me speak to
people are learning please.
Let me say let me tell you something. Let me say something. Again, Richard. Rob. Sorry. I apologize. Honestly. I forgot. Now, Rob, if I tell you something right here right now.
Do you use Russia? First of all, why is this? Why is the circular argument? A circular argument is to use a thing to prove a thing. Okay, how so? How do you prove that I'm tall? Because I because I'm totally understand I understand. Okay. But is that you need something external from the thing in order to prove the thing. Otherwise, you've fallen into a logical fallacy equals a circular argument, you understand? self evident self attesting axiomatic for the term you want to use? Okay.
My question to you, sir.
No, I'm not in the same position. Okay. Thank you. Well, before I show you, just to recap, your position was you can use rationality, to prove rationality. Do you understand that? Yes, you did.
Now, you said you can I asked you directly. Okay. And it's on camera. I said, can you use rationality? Are you telling me can you use rationality? He said, Yes, yes. Okay. Now, my question to you, sir, is, is it the case? Now, have you understood that why you can't use rationality to prove rationality? Okay, let me tell you.
It requires an explanation.
It's a circular argument. It's a fallacy. axiomatic properly basically. So you're saying is axiomatic something which is axiomatic by definition, requires no evidence has no evidence?
No has no evidence on you have to use it in order to false? Why is the evidence that you have aligned?
What is the evidence that I'm standing? What is the evidence that you Sir, have a mind and rationality that we're able to speak that I'm able to take you so you're using you're using your mind and rationality to prove mind the rationality right, so it's a circular argument.
Okay, so now you're asking me, how do I do it? Yes. Okay.
Come on. No, no, no, Preston.
My friend. What's the name again? Sir? I'm Andy. And oh, I've spoken to you before I'm
not gonna go on.
What is required, in order for rationality to be accepted, as your world self evident or axiomatic? Is something above and beyond. They are the rational realm
that endows wherever is with rationality? In other words,
are you waiting for rationality to come up with it? No, hold on, hold on. No, no, no. This is what I'm gonna come to. I'm actually not using my rationality. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Okay, no, I'm not gonna be using my
I'll tell you from a theological Islamic perspective, I'll tell you exactly what we believe.
Muslims, and is our explanation, believe that we are born with something called the fitrah. Come down comes up.
Come down. If you want to hear the explanation, then you Okay, the fifth law is a non rational reality that every human being is,
Oh, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, as a non rational reality that all human beings are born with. we justify our rationality based on the fact that we have something transcendent, eternal, an entity above and beyond the scope of the universe, that then in dows, human beings with rationality, yes, that's a claim. Yes, it's a it's a claim that now this is an explanation. That's my explanation. What I'm saying is, what other explanation do you have for, for explaining the fact that we have rationality? I just told you, no, you have nothing. You have? No, you have nothing I've told you.
You've made an assertion I've made an X ray, I've given you an explanation is the difference between an explanation and assertion? You made an assertion? Yeah, it's the same thing that caught up. Sometimes. No. Sometimes an assertion can take that sometimes an assertion can take the form of an explanation. Why not? I'll be honest with you, you're hungry. You
don't twist it to rationality because it's very good. Okay. My belief in rationality. Humans have rationality, why do they believe
I'm a human being? No, why are you an atheist? What is your What is your theological belief? I have no
My evidence and people can Yes, yes. It's based on civilizations that existed before us, the ancient Greeks, the works of Aristotle Socrates discussing this very big the evidence that they used to prove it and you have the ancient Egyptian yes the Sumerians the missile. Yeah. Okay.
Based on your logic, let's take your logic because I like what you said that
would you say that something an idea, which is cross cultural, cross cultural, and defies the boundaries of culture, what I mean by that is that you're from Africa maybe or from
an African culture, you have certain customs, in our culture, you have certain customs in South African country, culture is something which, which basically goes above and beyond the cultural landscape and goes into a. So basically, an idea which is present across cultures, and across times, superstition Now, what I mean by an idea, like for example, language, language exists across cultures, and across different places and times, mathematics exists across cultures, and across the different times.
You accept the ideas that exist across cultures and across times, yeah, are something basically, which are above and beyond the sociological timeframe. So what I mean by that is the idea of God. The idea of monotheism is the first of all I use the word God hates.
The idea of monotheism, the
idea of monotheism is something which is exactly what you said is, it's something which is not specified to one particular culture has existed for time is cross civilizational. And it's cross and it's got more than it's got a broad time span. So it's not just, let's say, a 21st century phenomenon.
This is more than you can say that way. theism atheism is not as we've just described, it's a very new phenomenon, as it relates to
Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens will worship God.
That's not a good claim. That's your claim. Your claim is based on inference.
Mohammed was a human being the Prophet.
He's a Prophet he brought to the Middle Eastern is the word of Allah, and taught them about the Quran, but he was a human being before he was born. What were they doing? They weren't worshiping one God. No.
person, what we're not saying is that everyone believes in God. Yeah. Now, I'm not saying is that no one was an atheist. But
let me let me.
Let me let me take Let me take a step back. Yeah. Because I can see how that can be misconstrued. No, I don't mean it like that. I don't mean, it's a 21st century thing I didn't exist before. That would be ridiculous. I'm saying, but what I want to go back to what you're saying. You're saying rationality is something above human beings that exists and is then passed on to studies what you're saying? And what is your evidence for that? I'm saying that that is the best explanation for the existence of human beings.
Let me tell you what these basically
there's just too many of you now, this is 1234 views. So I'm saying
one voice at a time because otherwise, it will just become a little bit too bulky. I'll simplify, what is your evidence? Okay.
All we need from them as evidence to
demonstrate That's true.
Okay. So what we're saying is, listen, this is important, because when you're asking for evidence, yeah, this is important. And I want everyone to remember what I'm about to say today. Yeah. No, I want you to remember, I want you to remember and use everyone in the audience at home and the audience watching at home. Ladies and gentlemen, right. When you speak to an atheist when I'm speaking to you right now, when he asks for evidence, the first thing you have to ask the atheist.
So I do apologize, always ISIS.
Last time we spoke here,
anyways, let me let me let us
know probably not sure.
So let me tell you something right here right now, Rob.
Rob, let me say something when I when I speak to you right now, in my mind, from a philosophical perspective and the more philosophical perspective person, I believe that the highest level of evidence fulfills three different criteria. Let me tell you what I believe Yeah, the highest level of evidence has to be incorrigible. has to be eternal, and has to be necessarily true, not contingently. True. Let me let me unpack that, please. Yeah, this is something basically incorrigible means
thing which doesn't change. Eternal means it will encourage ability and eternality. Right? Always remaining was always remained. Yeah. And number three is necessarily true or not contingently true, which means that for example, it's contingently true that I'm wearing this, this that this thing that yeah, this. Usually this this nice one. Yeah, I'm joking. This is contingently true that you know you're wearing that or that you've got that nice hat on, or whatever. Yeah. But it's necessarily true that two plus two equals four.
It couldn't, it couldn't be any other way. You get this, you accept that?
Yes, it's absolutely right. Within the rules of arithmetic, two plus two equals four is not contingently. True. That's necessarily true. Okay. Okay. Okay. So what we're what we're saying here, something which fulfills those three criteria does not exist. Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
Say that again? Okay. I'll say it one more time. Are you speaking with yourself?
No, let me tell you. No, no, no, no.
Let me tell you why. I mean,
what did you say? You know, I'll say one more time.
Something which fulfills those three criteria, whether it be mathematics, whether it be rationality, whether it be science, anything, you bring logic, deductive, inductive. abductive, anything you want will never fulfill those required tyria. So why don't you bring it up? I'll tell you why. Because now we know what we can't give evidence for. It's important when you ask me for evidence.
And I'm not saying you said this, but in my mind, the highest level of evidence is that? Well, you have to understand that if you ask me for evidence on that level, you can't bring me evidence for anything to get me.
Now, the point is, what kind of evidence do we as human beings operate with? This is a question. The answer is as follows. You understand the
criteria which you which no one can work with. That criteria is not fulfilled anywhere. Okay, give me one exception of something, which isn't necessarily true. And in this century, it turns unintelligible Give me one thing in layman's terms. Just to simplify this, the onus is not on me to prove to prove that there is another world. I'm not saying the other world. I won't say anything about Oh, you're talking about?
A person, please, please. I'm saying
if I say
he can give us evidence.
I think the new way of discussing and this is I believe a revolutionary thing I'm gonna do is because
I refuse. Wait a minute, what what are you talking about?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, I'm sorry. But I refuse. I refuse to now for for this rice to fall for this trap when I was younger, to give me evidence away. And then I used to give the evidence is no. The first thing that must be established is what kind of evidence we're talking about. Because if you say something is you want evidence, I give you any evidence, you can criticize it, you know that? If you give me evidence for anything in the world, I can criticize it. Is it reasonable to do that? Yeah, sometimes it can be. sometimes not. I believe it's my worldview that I'm saying no subjective opinion. Okay, having said this, why would you do?
Okay, Rob, Rob, Rob, freedom of speech, what I'm saying I want to see if you accept what I'm saying or not what I am saying here and now. And if you accept this is an easy conversation. And it's going to be easy.
Do you accept that the way that we as human beings come to conclusions is not by trying to find certainties in the three ways I've defined, but it's trying to find out that which is probabilistically. True. ie, I say the best explanation, the best explanation. We say we don't in the morning, when you check your phone, okay?
You can even see there is no God, neither can we, for certainty. That's good. We go with the best possible explanation, kind of Mo, I'm saying this probability works in the following way. While I'm talking about probability
wave, Rob, we determine what is true and false based on how we we probably lies things in our mind. We say okay, this is probably true. For example, you go to the ATM machine, and you put your card in. And it says, and as all those zeros, yeah. Because I didn't say I'm gonna put the card in and it says, One zeros and so many zeros, but there's a minus, there's a minus before and
when we do that, ladies and gentlemen, we're not seeing the money. If I'm not doing this. It's probably true that that money is dead, because
We have no public reasoning that works with me. We have rational reasoning, we know how the system works, that money is put in
and put the money. So we know it's a fact we know.
You'll say, Oh, wait a minute, this is good. You're saying that now using tourism? Are you saying that anything that we don't see we don't believe in yet, but we see is that what you're saying?
do I see my mind? Can we see the physical brain or the
mind imagining something? Can you see it? Can I see what you know?
This is a good question.
Let's go back to the
person has told me that if you don't see something was assumed or is kind of alluded to the fact you don't see something you can't believe it.
You gave an example about going to the bank and people see that you gave an example.
How do we know that there's money in there? And I said, we know because we see them. Okay, so
you believe that
goes into the bank?
this is what you're saying? The evidence is empirical, you see it? Okay, so is your standard of truth and improved cosine of truth where you have to see something to believe it? Not all the time. Okay. So that's what that's fine. So that your statement there is neither here nor there. We go back to our standard of truth.
This is the gospel mathematician say this man is good.
How many lines go three lines?
Is that necessarily true? Or within the rules of math is necessarily true? Within those of us within the rules of language, okay, fine. Whatever you say.
The language by the way, mathematics is a language.
But also mathematics itself is a you know, mathematics itself is a language anyways.
How can you prove it?
So, you're, this is important. Your true standard is not a true standard, which you can you ask him to do something with certain truth. I've never said that.
Thank you very much. So what you're asking me is, give me something which is most probably true. Give me something I can evaluate, which is likely true. Okay. So this goes back to what I was saying before. My best explanation for the existence of a rational mind or rational minds, is our minds that can process rationality is something above and beyond rationality that then endow something with rationality that show us why we should believe that why should that be true? Why is not it's not the business of science anyways, why is not the business of science?
I'm not telling you to believe. I'm not telling you that why. Okay. Okay, hold on. Let me ask you a question.
You're saying what evidence what reasons? Yeah. Exactly saying to you, that just as rationality is self evident.
I'm saying to you that the fifth way itself is axiomatic is metaphysical. rationality, I'm using it, no. But then you're you're shooting yourself in the foot? Yes, you are. You're basically saying this way. Now, let me tell you why. Let me tell you why you're shooting yourself in the foot. Now. Hold on, please. You're shooting yourself in the foot. Because what you're actually doing is you're being discriminatory.
You're being discriminatory in the way you're applying your standards. Yes, you're discriminating, you're discriminating. And what
is, you have to understand the fallacy in your own reasoning first, so it's wrong for me to ask you to show me another person, please appreciate what he's trying
to do is get on the same level as rationality, the laws of logic. The reason for is not on that level, is because in order to
attempt to prove rationality, you've got to use it. So that circulate in the sense that it's self attesting, it's the same with the most of much open open my mouth to speak. I assume the laws of logic are true. And for me to even try and falsify them. I have to assume that to be true. Okay. It's good self attesting. Now the future is not self.
no, no, no.
Both of you, you have fooled into like, you know, you know, when you walk, and then there's a big mind and then you put your foot and he grows up in your face. You've fallen into that. Because what you've done here is you're saying it's okay for you to have axiomatic assumptions of
Some metaphysical principles, but not others. That's what Yes. So what you're saying is yes, in the same way i'm not i'm saying this the idea of something which is metaphysical and axiomatic is that it does not require evidence. Wow, why?
Yes, it is. I'm
just saying, Well, if you want to refute me, give me some give me some evidence rationally.
Okay, then don't speak to me about evidence because
we need to believe it is because, first of all, it has explanatory power. That's number one.
That's my assertion and actually does, if you think about
the lesson, number one, it has explanatory power, when I say that something which is above and beyond the scope of rationality. Yeah, or something which has rationality but is above and beyond the explanation which is required, which is rationality, then in those who embrace rationality, that's an explanation which fits and is and is consistent.