Mohammed Hijab – How Do You Measure Truth
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the definition of "slack" and the importance of following rules in scientific research. They stress the need for a "slack" stance and the use of testimonial accounts in scientific conversations. They also discuss the definition of "monarchistic" and the importance of recognizing and following rules in order to attain honoring history. The speakers emphasize the importance of proving that a belief is true and the need for more knowledge. They also mention the importance of the "slack man" approach to science and the lack of knowledge as a result of a lack of need to know.
AI: Summary ©
On the basis of those who believe it, for example, if you say that, okay, something is controversial, and therefore it's less likely to be true, then you're, you're you're attaching the truth value of that thing with what people's perception of it is. So it's a very good general rule. But like I said, See, this fallacy isn't always so enlightening. Because Do you believe in Henry the Eighth? I believe existed, okay? Because it's not a very controversial thing. both agree and Henry the Eighth. Now, okay, we're both subjects of the fantasy on things like
a good example.
giant squid, giant squid, some scientists believe don't exist, because there's only been like five episodes. Now, if I asked you to believe that giant squid exists at the bottom of the ocean floor, what would you say? Depends on how you define Giant Man. I've seen scripts.
Biological definition, which is a giant, giant anyway, I don't know
that
I don't say something funny, just to kind of Brandeis a bit. You know, I didn't see my dad for a long time. Yeah, he went abroad or whatnot. And he came back. And he looked at me because I'm taller than him. And he looked at me, he goes, are you giant? And I didn't know how to answer that question. Right? The question is, a lot of these things depend upon definitions, just you I'm saying. So you said giant squid, what's your definition of giant? We know what squid is? That's a different story. Right? What I'm saying here generally is what I want you to understand is that in theological discussions, we shouldn't retreat into an approach. We shouldn't pre retreat into a
place where we use different standards, as we do in other places, for example, in philosophy, or in general in history, wherever you have a certain standard of truth, you're willing to accept that Henry days existed, you're willing to accept that the Holocaust happened because of testimonial evidence. If that's your approach, fine. That's fine. Now let's talk about that approach. I haven't got a problem with that. I think that's a good approach. Yeah. Because generally speaking, I haven't been to 200 countries in the world, but I know that they exist, right? I have I have confidence that they exist, I just say something that see this is where the error occurs. I think you go from this
very specific example. Like you said, there's many specific examples. And then you said, generally speaking, we don't want to generally speak about these things. This is the point about things about the standards and different definitions. We shouldn't speak generally. Okay, you understand? Okay, so, so tell me, tell me what, you're fine. If you're saying that I'm saying there are general principles we can apply in life. Yeah. So I'm saying that this is a principle I'm putting in place. If you're saying for the most part, I accept testimonial account, so long as it so long as it fulfills x y Zed criteria, because
I'm really making the case for specificity there. No, okay. Fine. It. Can you be specific? So we've got a general rule. Yeah, I'll give you a general example. Yeah. If you said just because corner exists, I would have maybe referred to two requirements to say
other things, further requirements, and what's the word you used, that you have to meet certain standards? You know, I mean, everything has the same requirements of skepticism. So tell me what I said some things are controversial. Some things aren't. So okay, once I once once again, one has, as I said, Sorry, are we on the same page? We are on the same page, right? If what you're saying is that, for example, is controversial for
a reason, which relates to its, for example, the primary source materials and in the case of history here, so something like the existence of, I don't know, Cyprus degree or something, yeah. or wherever you want something obscure, something which happened in the Bronze Age or something like that, where the primary source materials are not conclusive. And you said, Okay, that's controversial for an academic reason. That's different to saying is controversial, for what I refer to as a democratic reason, which is kind of like okay, people, people differ on this people different, almost everything, I think, I don't think it is the same thing. Why is why is it
different academics? Okay, so academic reasons, usually cite evidences, whereas the lay people are not specialist enough to cite those evidences all the time. And it goes back to Socrates definition of sorry, criticism of democracy. He says that democracy, his his criticism of it was that democracy is not the be all and end all because not everyone is a specialist to talk about politics. Now, the same thing applies for history and science. So if, for example, me and you differ on a scientific reality is different to if scientists have the highest evidence differ for methodological reasons. Does that make sense? kind of back to
the point was about you said academic principles will be different from normal people. Now what I'm saying is what did you mean Okay, let me say
One more time you said if something is your objection to testimonial account seems to be that if something is controversial, then the question what ought to be put on it? Yeah, I'm saying to you, that is a justifiable stance to have in some, some cases. In other cases, it's not justifiable. So if it's if it's controversial academically, because the evidence base, whether it be primary or secondary source evidences is questionable. That's justifiable controversy, which gives you the right to put a question mark on it. But if it's controversial, for popular reason, which the lay audience might not be acquainted with the the academic realities of that particular thing, then it
doesn't carry the same epistemic weight they are.
And they can be intertwined. They often are intertwined, but I'm not saying they always are, which is the point I'm making? Okay, fine. So generally, now this why is this relevant to the atheist slash theist debate, because now we're living in the West. And for the most part, there is a popular culture of atheism. Now, if you look at the census in 2001, there was some 76% Christians in this country, right and 2011, it went down to some 54, something like this. Yeah. So went down by 20. So 20 to 20% of people left Christianity. Yeah, in 10 years. So if we were to consult the general mess, the popular opinion, okay, that's going to give us a taste of what people think of atheism, because
we're social creatures, and we're prone to secondary socialization. In the context of whatever country we're living in, we're going to absorb some of that energy by or some of that popular opinion. So I'm saying is that when you're approaching subjects, sometimes you have to strip yourself of your sociological bias and start looking at things once again on their academic merit, which is why we have to make the distinction between what I refer to as a popular a popular controversy versus an academic or otherwise evidence based controversy. You see what I'm saying? Okay, but the thing is, when I said they intertwine, they tend to intertwine most in the scientific
theological places, you know, because there's academic,
luck, lack of academic consensus in science, in evolution, for example, and in theology, influences the popular library. Sometimes that can be the case, isn't it always the case of science and religion? No science and religion? It's not always because it always is, once again, to take your words, you can't
generalize it right. A lot of the time, a lot of times
most evolutionary psychologists disagree with many evolutionary biologists is because of the academic the lack of academic consensus, and that trickles down into conversations or speakers. Cool. Yeah, absolutely. Sadly, same in religion. Yeah, certainly can't be the same in religion. So once again, I don't think it's a point of disagreement anyway. The point is the point is this right? So long as you're talking about testimony. So that's one way of you ascertaining the truth, right? You're ascertaining something using testimonial account that meets a certain methodological criteria. That's what you call history, the study of history is based on the actually primary
sources, primary sources. Yeah, you look at things on their mirror and see how many people have affirmed these things.
Yeah.
You know how? I'm basically in a nutshell, sorry, oh, because you made the point about prison versus history.
History is the study of the past. Now, the conversation I had with you, like two minutes ago, that's the that's the past, right? Everything is history, in a sense, if you want. Everything is history, in a sense, a current right. However, I know generally, historians in the academic world, they won't say something is history unnecessarily, a decade or two decades, right. That's something else, right. But what I'm saying to you is, the methodological approach can sometimes be used, if not exactly the same, but in a similar way, in different in different conversations, like philosophical conversations and elsewhere. Well, you know, your mother's son, because your mother, the woman who
brought you up, gave you a testimonial account, she told you, your name is Darren, okay. I'm your mom, you grew up in this house, but you didn't demand to see like I'm saying, your, your birth certificate, and to do a DNA test. And to go through the actual method. You got me. So from not your you have? Do you have any doubt that your mom is your mom? No, but like I said, so testimony in that case? It's funny. It's funny, right? Right. Okay, you made a point about history. The thing is, with history, the reason you can't compare history to the study of a trio sometimes because the study of the study of a tree.
Just because, I mean, there is a different methodological approach does not really matter. Let me tell you why. Because history isn't the path.
It's the study of the past. Okay.
make that clear? Yeah. Okay. And it's, history isn't one method. I mean, you should know if you've, if you've done this, that there's many different types of historical
On methods you could say, historical materialist, ways of looking at history, historicism historiography, these are very different ways of trying to ascertain the actual events of the past. And that's why history is far more contentious than almost any other
topic that I can think of outside of religion or science, or sociology is very once again,
we can look at the study of society.
I don't really agree with the way you don't agree with that. All right.
Well, like I said before, something being contentious or controversial, doesn't depreciate from its absolute truth standard. In a nutshell, that's one. Number two, the study of history, the study of history, just like the study of science, sociology, and psychology and all these things, is is premised on kind of empiricism and kind of induction. Yes, yeah. So you were kind of making a big separation between history and science. But in essence, both of those studies depended upon empirical and inductive methods, and I can tell you why they don't really okay. Yeah, go ahead and tell me how that would be really interesting.
History doesn't rely on empirical evidence. Okay, so if so, how do you? How do you collect evidence? What evidence empirical evidence is measurable? purpose sensible evidence? Yeah. Okay. So you see the evidence, you hear the evidence, for example? Yeah, look at the tree, I study it, you look at the primary source evidence. And then I can say, Oh, well, in history you're looking at you're looking
at political forces approval,
we have a different definition of empiricism. Because there is one definition of empiricism. Okay, so give me an example of a historical piece of empirical evidence. any evidence is empirical. any evidence is empirical. Because the way you're the way you're consuming evidence, proving Henry the Eighth, he could argue, yeah, what is it? So the primary source things like his diaries, and this and that, and empirical and because it's, no, it's not okay.
You can you can go home, by your own definition. This is just one testimonial. Let me tell you wise, let me say one person.
Okay. You might not know, this is
my phone, bro. But you might have to get on your phone in China, trust me.
In person, for me, hold on, let me tell you. Okay. That's, that's why I said, empiricism is something which relies upon your five senses in order to ascertain information, okay? Everything in essence that you consume is a is a is a result of one of your five senses, or a combination of them. So when you're coming to a conclusion of something, right, almost anything that you come to a conclusion about is going to be as a result of seeing something, hearing something, touching something, feeling something or whatever, very broad and vague. Okay. So in history, you can't have evidences, unless you unless you interact with them in one of those five ways. Therefore, history is
as empirical aside, okay, fine. If you don't accept that, okay, I've just told you how I've defined it. And now if you don't accept this, it's fine. You can go home, we can both do our studies or whatever, it's fine, no problem. I'll see your point of view will differ. No problem, no problem.
If someone says, if not right now, I see something All right, happening. And then 20 or 30 years from now, someone asks me what happened. I have felt that situation happened firsthand. And I'm then going to narrate it, it will become testimony, but it starts off as being empirical. Okay, well, that's another way some miracle.
Let's say we're in court and
this guy says he saw me do something. commit a crime. I say, No, I didn't do you didn't commit nothing.
In both cases, neither testimony is valid. Because testimony, there's no impurities in the
Fine, fine. If you're if you want to say that, that's fine. I've just explained to you how I've just explained, once again, we default No problem, we can look up the definition, what is the purpose? So
what is it? You want to get your phone out? Because you're talking about it? read out what empiricism is do you want someone to someone else could do it? Or someone else can do it? Yeah, the definition of empiricism so we can understand what what I mean by it. I'm saying generally speaking all of those sciences By the way, yeah, generally speaking in general so because everything is in general. So it's all times when we can find it. You can find exceptions to almost every specified What I'm saying is Henry the Eighth that's a very specific example. Moreover, social sciences by their very nature attempt to mimic the natural sciences you know that sometimes very badly. That's
good, fine. Okay. But that is not an empirical form. That's why
Jason protocol, then okay, but it doesn't it doesn't follow exactly. This is cool. Like, you definitely have your own definition of it. Alright, let's see what was it was he with it?
Sorry that's the wrong one wrong okay
row someone can someone give me a definition of empiricism on their phone so we can
get it I I should come up there is imperialism
yeah please go ahead and turn it into racism in this theory that states that knowledge comes from only it was primarily from sensory experience is one of the several views of his epistemology essentially section, etc. Okay, so what did I hold on? You've just read that don't please Yeah, you've just read out because I don't mind being wrong here. I don't mind I feel like you were no No, no, no, I don't mind being wrong. However. I said to you I said you
don't listen to me.
Listen carefully. We don't need to prove anything like intelligence I don't care if you're not trying to get me we're trying to so I saw on camera and I'm saying I said what is empiricism something which relies on the five senses you got me so here you've read the definition and this is agree with that. So okay, fine.
Isn't empirical because you don't what you're saying is kind of like anyone would not agree with it. Anyone who understands this to disagree that you don't have to be arrogant on this.
This is not something which needs to be disagreeing on.
You don't need to be okay stubborn. You don't need to be stubborn on this you don't need to you just read the after five senses, sensory experience anything whatsoever.
We pursue this I'm happy to pursue this. I've just told you that I've just read out almost the same thing as I'm willing to pursue you I don't understand what you're saying.
School bro, we agree on the same definition of a parasite. That's good. Let's move on. No, no, no, no. Okay. Go and say Say what you want to say.
Okay, apologize for that.
No, you know what this
is taken
to follow.
Now, we all know there's a lot of contention around the figures of the amount of people died, chill, not really know of in academic circles, which is another example if we're not going to agree on that, at least
take
all figures of the Iraq War, for example, very contested in like, last decade. Okay, fine. Now,
according to many different studies, this many people died from these
studies, this got many people. According to definition, all of those statistical studies were empirical. Now, you should know that that's not empirical. Because there's not one truth. There's not one outcome. Now, empirical, as used in science is looking at the tree. We're all looking at the same trees. We're all looking at the same groups. That's the difference. That's that's what you're talking about. That's sensory, we can all share the same source. Now if you're talking about
empirical history, which is supposed to be empirical. It's never that because there's always different sources the old misinformed and telling me this one, so did you know why you
should know that history is built. Okay. What's your background? What have you studied?
studied a lot of Tell me what you've studied.
Okay, so this is not your field.
Sorry, this is not your fields. And let me just say some Yeah, so now it's just gonna have to become an educational experience.
They don't know what film consists of.
I've done this many times. people misinterpret what I've studied. Film is very much what we're talking about. Okay, fine. It's very much sociological.
This is these are these are these are key. You don't understand. Like,
I don't I don't really want to I don't want to try anything. Oh, you bought empiricism as I've stated it is quite, it's quite easily googled. Never use it. Whatever you have is Google. Okay. Yeah, there It seems you got like your defense.
I feel like you're okay, though.
He is very different. Okay. So, before we, before we proceed, I know that what you've said is correct. is different. The usage is different, but the method is the same. So you're still using your senses to come to conclusions of something. You're using someone else's senses. Okay, fine. Are you using
someone else's fine, no problem. Someone else is playing the
same thing was saying.
Look, if you
don't really go by what I'm saying Say what you want to say go.
If I look at the tree, and I tell you it's a certain way. Okay, have you observed the tree?
Have you observed the trauma? What are we talking about? Looking over that? I'm looking at this tree here? I'm gonna tree sciences. Okay. Yo, see this tree is called a group
is eight foot rounds. And you're looking at you're just hearing me. Have you seen the tree? Have you observed the tree? While you're saying that? Yeah. Have you observed the tree wall? And that allows you just go. I can't see it. No, you can't see you're looking Oh, yeah, so I haven't No. Do you have any empirical evidence? Yeah. Your testimony? No. Yeah. That's cool. Because I observed it. Okay. Okay, fine in a scientific way. That's cool. Take my word for it. fellow scientists are in his historical search the same thing, not the same thing. Of course, it's the same thing. It's not the same thing. But that will let the people decide what sources Okay, fine, same thing. I think the
same thing applies. I think something right now is different, was we recommend that you read a book, it's really interesting, very small. It's a good introduction to these things, because it will help help you understand these themes, but also the people that are watching at home or on the side, it seems it's a small book written by a guy called Samir Akasha. Who the introduction to the philosophy of science. Yeah, this book is actually it talks about imperialism in the first kind of couple of chapters. It's interesting the way it puts it here.
The way the guy puts it is, I'm gonna put it to you now, the observable reality, for example, like you got a vase. Yeah. The vase. If you have a vase that he dropped, you drop it, then we can all observe the fact that all smashed on the floor. Okay? That's empiricism. Listen to Yeah. Okay. Would you agree? That's empiricism? Yes. Would you agree that scientific? Yes. All right. Now, the way you said it is that you will, given the example of different sociological outcomes, you said, okay, but these people have this death toll on this. Right? Listen carefully. So hear what he says. Yeah, we can all see the vase falling onto the floor. But different scientists have had historically
different explanations of how it falls on the floor, for example, Newtonian, Newtonian physics versus Einsteinian physics. So both of those are two approaches that aim to explain how the vast fall fell on the floor. Yet, both of them depend upon the same empirical account. The same thing applies in sociology, right? I'm not saying By the way, that sociology or any of the social sciences have the same merit or the same, kind of the same level as the natural, the natural so I'm not saying that. But why I'm saying,
interestingly, and this I don't make make this into a too much of a philosophical conversation. Right. But why I'm saying to you is, interestingly, science is premised on the social sciences. Science is primitive social science. Yeah. Let me tell you how, yeah, because natural sciences have presuppose a methodological presuppositions, like, for example, empiricism, like, for example, logical reductionism, like, for example, the fact that we're sensing the scientific method or logical approach itself. These things are not scientific in their nature. They're actually their philosophical, their philosophical precepts, falsification ism, Karl Popper, who died in 1994, all
of those things, and he actually used to do a lecture in LSE University. All of those things are actually philosophical precepts, which underpin the study of science, do you get me so from that perspective, you could say the social sciences, in this case, philosophy supersedes or presupposes the natural sciences. So it doesn't matter? No, it doesn't matter. Of course, it matters, okay. It matters in that way. But the two are qualitatively different. Okay, so what difference doesn't it doesn't indicate advantage all the time? Right? So for example, if we're saying that,
yeah, so so if we do agree on the definition of inferior on empiricism, and empiricism isn't all these things which I wouldn't? You know, I don't think many people would agree that history history is empirical, a democratic economy if we did, the qualitative differences between empiricism required by each is so different. There's no point. Okay, using the same No, okay, fine, fine. I see that now. I think I'm happy with what you've said there. Because it seems like you've matured in your approach, to be honest with you. I've always to feel like look.
Look, whatever you want to call it, bro. I'm here. I'm not trying to be rude to you. Forget it. I'm just speaking to you. Okay, I look once again, I genuinely do apologize if you take anything. I'm not trying to be rude. Honestly, I'm not trying to be rude. You accept my apology. Accepted? Yeah, sure. All right. So let me let me proceed. Yeah. So now, because this actually is important things that we fleshed out here. We talked about empiricism it talks about testimony. We talked somewhat about reductionism, we talked somewhat about like, the logical approach. The important truth here is this is that when we're coming to, to truth standards, because if I say look, for example, I believe
that there was a initiator of the universe.
And the way I come to that conclusion, and that the I believe that there was an initiator of the universe, and that the Quran is the final message sent to all human beings. I'm a Muslim. And you asked me, Why did you come to that conclusion? I will say to you in a nutshell, bro.
I come to that conclusion for a similar reason why you come to most of your conclusions in life. Like, inference is coming to is using evidence to come to conclusion if you look if you want to Google what inference means.
I promise you the Oxford dictionary is going to describe it in this way. Yeah. So my inference to the best explanation as to why we're here. And what we're doing here is that in a nutshell, bro, we're here because there was an initiator, creator, maintainer of the universe, put us into existence, and gave us purpose death, through
both intrinsic methods and extra extraneous methods. So hey, these are the two things I believe. And and this conviction I have, let's not call it belief, because some people will just jump up and down with belief. This conviction I have is premised on the same methods that me and you use in normal everyday life.
So,
I will say to you instead of going through the arguments, because everyone here has heard the cosmological argument, okay, you've heard it. You're an educated guy. Do you get me notice? I do. I do believe you're an educated guy. I'm not just saying that because you because the themes.
I'm telling you, bro, it wasn't to do with your what you were saying because I from beginning to end saw you as Okay, this guy's he's informed. Yeah. But it was just about
your approach. I felt like you had your defenses up a little bit. That's why I'm in by maturity, like your emotional intelligence, Daniel government, but I don't even believe that exists too much. Anyways, having said that server, man coming over here, yeah, of course was.
Alright, so while I was gonna say to you, What was this?
Generally speaking,
I'm going to ask you,
I'm going to tell you the narrative in 20 or 30 seconds and asked you why you don't agree with it. Yeah. The narrative the Islamic narrative is as follows. I'm not sure what background you come from, you're not Muslim, right? so obvious. So okay, this one makes sense. The Islamic narrative is that the universe came into existence, through the will and power of God, of this creator of this entity of this initiator. Yeah, that always existed, he was the first and will always exist, he is the last right. He put the universe into existence, he put human beings into the universe, and he ascribed purpose to the human being, okay? By giving them a mission in life, that mission is to worship him
to submit to His quotes and his will, to His laws, if you will, just like everything else in life is submitting to His laws, just like this laws of physics, if you will. There's there is natural laws. There are also sociological laws, there are also social laws, you get what I'm saying. From that perspective, though, we believe that this initiator, this maintain our sustainer, we call God colloquially, right? God then gave each of the messengers the same message. These messengers are human beings that were born just like every other human being, except for Jesus, and Adam. They were born just like all human beings. And those individuals came to their people respect to peoples and
times and places to tell them to basically worship God and to submit to as well and do good to your fellow man.
with exactly the exemption of the final messenger, all of the messages were sent to their respective times, peoples to preach their communities. The final messenger who believe is from Mohammed, was differentiated in the in so much as he was sent for all of humankind.
Do you get what I mean? Now, this is meant to resonate with you. I mean, frankly, we believe in something called the fitrah. fertilize the predisposition. I mean, you are psychologically according to se, predisposed to submit to a higher authority. Anyways, a higher power, went to recognize this authority intrinsically axiomatically almost Yeah. So I will say to you, if this doesn't resonate with you, it doesn't First of all, does this resonate with you? And if it doesn't, what flaws or problems do you see in it such that is such that you're not willing to take that first step in order to potentially be one of those members of people that follow the profits? That's a hard question.
Don't buy it.
If I if I set you up to commit, there's a lot at stake here. There is a lot of steals literally, reasonable exists moreso from your side than just take a little convenient thing that makes sense. It
takes far more than that to prove life and existence.
And I feel like
okay, you don't buy it. But if you say that you don't buy it, now, you have to justify it.
epistemically because I'm saying that
you have to justify it epistemically so,
so we said already we discussed we discussed like sons of truth. It seems like what you are saying is that in terms of samples of truth and logistics,
When you asked me, Why do you exist? What is everything ever in existence exists? You know, I'm gonna, it's gonna be deep, like, okay, it's a process at which you become convinced. I was gonna say that. And that's not enough to me What's wrong with it? It's not enough to convince us. Okay.
Let's take a contentious historical issue, something that you might have looked at, you must apply your skepticism, fuck her right in the pussy.
See what I'm saying?
So basically, you must be hired.
wasn't like
you were saying taking the so called contentious consultant. So imagine you've looked at Simon history. Yeah. It's quite contentious, but you really want to figure it out, you want to come to the conclusion. So you apply quite
apply quite high standards so that the way that you feel about this, you have rigorous and informed skepticism to come to the conclusion, whatever it may be. Now, I feel that a lot of people will require more rigorous skepticism and requirements for things like this, and they would be a great sponsor of
art. Fair enough. Let me ask you a question about you know, what you said about you being one sun? Yeah, let's take that as an example, which is interesting. You know, the Quran says I'm fully Coronavirus, a mumble Hakuna
where they created from nothing, or were they themselves the creators of themselves? chapter 52 verse 35. Yeah.
It's quite an interesting thing to think about. If you think about not only your own existence by the existence of the universe in general, right. I'm fully comin Heidi Shane was a created from nothing. Because you gotta think about all of the alternatives here. theological alternatives. Yeah. If we say that, okay, this thing called God doesn't exist, and we're all just here. As a matter of
fact, not even a random generation came from nothing I never said. I'm not saying used to say. By the way, I never said that. You said that. And let me make that clear. Right. He never said that. The question is, what options do you really have, right?
Yeah, so the Quran says I'm hola Coronavirus, a Harlequin Amala. Kusama, what you love Bella, you can know where they created from nothing. So your first option? Is that the universe or you came into existence? Generally from nothing? Yes. I'm homegirl Holly hoon. Did you create yourself? You know that that can't be the case, because it would assume existence and non existence at the same time. The same thing applies for the universe, right? I'm Hala Kusama. What you allowed? Did you go and create the universe? Obviously, you didn't? Right? Could you say that something in the universe created the universe. You can't say that. Right? So, but you can own.
The only thing I can think of that atheists will say is that the universal was was was always in created was always there. In which case, we can have a discussion about contingency, or the considerable multiple universes, but then again, there'll be an infinite amount of universes, all of which would regressively go backwards? Which would, which would mean you'd have one universe, I'd have to start everything up. The question is, how do you explain existence? When all of the atheistic models seem to be completely out of line with that, which is your approach, which is, which is really a testimonial approach, a logical approach or empirical approach? It's all of those
things are out the window with atheism? Yeah, there's actually no deduction ism, no. induction is in no empiricism. No inference that you can make that will make atheism a tenable option for a rational actor. I agree. Yeah. From that perspective, you're, you're actually forced, in a sense compelled to steer towards a theistic alternative. And if you are forced towards a theistic alternative, the question is when you realize that God is, does exist, and the universe is in existence, and we are in the universe as actors, rational actors. What are we doing here? And why are we here? And the question is, what narrative? What meta narrative better explains our existence than the one I gave
you have for a forehand? None. So why don't you just accept it? This is no this is, this is what it's really about. You gave me a list of conditions and muster on all these possible ways that we might exist. Are you limited to those? Or to me as the ones I gave you, I think we're limited to them. Yes, I do. So give me something else. We don't know.
I've just set you the only option for the equation of university that ya know, the condition. Well, I mean, Surely you're aware of the fact that there's certain things that we don't know. Yeah, okay. Can you tell me what was happening? 900 ad in Botswana probably not know why because not much history. In that part of the world. There is ad Yeah, of course there is. Botswana. Okay.
Maybe that's a bad example. Yeah, it's very
hard for
Botswana and Africa. Take her. Tell me what was happening in the region was Botswana?
Sorry, what was happening in the Alaska Region of the North American
history that we just don't know.
You know, I'm saying I mean, I am very content with the fact that I don't know everything.
Witness security and the need for
some people don't.
Some people I feel
so some people are very insecure with this fact. And their coping mechanism is to often, you know, sometimes you say, I'm done.
Okay, Charley horses times use logic and Russian, to try to come to the most amenable convenient way of explaining things. Now the truth is growth in mental and patient life in my
things that you will never know. Okay. I think I'll never know.
And I personally believe that the biggest question of all is certainly not the one we know. You know, I'm saying, I mean, it seems that that's a cop out, though, to be honest with you. I know.
We can talk about the discussion. If you if men don't even know, the state of
political affairs in the Northwest region of Mongolia 1000 years ago, a few
1000 years ago and reach in how'd you expect to tell me how we came into existence? Scientists? Certainly. We had a big we had a big empire that time.
We had the thoughts of the Mongolian Empire.
But the point is, is that we don't know. And I believe that this is
a cop out because look, you're right, that I'm not making the argument that we know everything. That's not what you're doing now is called a straw man. straw man fallacy, right? Because what?
Yeah, I suppose because I've not I've not made the argument that we, you've got two presuppositions, right? One of your presuppositions is that you need to know all knowledge in order to come to conclusions of our beginnings. I don't know if there is a presupposition. Of course, it's no, no, because you might have misunderstood me. I'm not saying we will know, once we know everything. Okay. So things we don't, we won't know. Okay, so agrees What's that got to do with anything?
What's that got to do with the beginning of the universe? And how
to clarify, yeah. Do you believe that there's some things we'll never know. Yeah, okay. Yeah. Yeah.
I never said that. Oh, once we know everything, then we'll know it. That would that would conclude that I believe everything is knowable. Okay. I never claimed. So what was What's that got to do with the discussion of our beginnings and why we believe that it might be one of those things that we'll never know. How can you prove that? I don't need to prove that. Okay. So then, so what? Well, how is this relevant to our discussion? I think that's entirely relevant. Okay. Muhammad? Yeah.
So you're saying this, okay. Look,
the thing is, you wouldn't accept this for Let me tell you, let me give you an easy example. Right? Because it seems like once again, and this is why I ended up having to accuse, I'm not saying you're an atheist, and like, whatever your background is, whatever your background is, what people with your kind of arguments, I accused them of always having different standards of proof. So when it comes to all the other sciences in life, they have certain standards, which are very clearly defined. testimony, empiricism, reductionism, reductionism, abduction, ism, whatever, you want to call it, a probabilistic reasoning. All of these things are all employable in all sciences. But when
it comes to theology, they're thrown, they're thrown out. Now, what I'm saying is this, when we're saying, you'll say, Oh, we might not know it, which is very much agnostic, a kind of approach. Yeah, well, I'm saying is this, if you went to, if you want to call, someone don't really something bad to to see a child or something I'm saying that happened, someone raised four children, and there was like, 10 cameras on them. And you had to in order to come to a conclusion on, you have to kind of review the evidence, you've reviewed evidence, and then some, and the judge comes out and says, you know, what, after reviewing the evidence is, we know, we have some information, but we don't have
all the information, therefore, we can't really take this person and punish that person. Do you know I'm saying, it wouldn't be something you would accept. So once again, your standard of truth, if you were to really employ it, where it counts for you emotionally, psychologically, and in your life, you you wouldn't allow you to call it injustice, right? So the same way I say to you, look,
if your standards of truth are such that you've just mentioned, the ones that you just met, we just go and gone through and I've given you this kind
Have outlines, which fits that standard of truth one except the center of truth. I think once again, you've misunderstood it, because take the cost analogy.
There, there may have been a way of finding out about all the facts, and therefore coming to a conclusion about what actually happened.
I'm saying this is not the case, there's many things that we won't know they cannot be known
within our scope. So that's why I believe, I believe I have to verify that.
I mean, cuz you've agreed you've agreed.
So when I say, Oh, well, this is one of the things that I believe we'll never know, I certainly have a problem, even though you're, you know, you have no reason. You have no reason to. That's the point. So, and I can also say, we can never know, or we can say we I will never know. And the first person I will never know what happened, right? And I'll say,
Do you know that you'll never know?
I don't see how it's very relevant. It's relevant. Just ask this question. First. I'll tell you why sort of an optimist. I'm asking you, do you know that you'll never know? No. How do you Okay, so why make the point? Why don't we the point, because I'm applying the same principle to that now. If you want to, if you want to know if I know, Ron, come on, man, hold on. Listen carefully, right? If you if you're if you're if your belief is that, okay? This whole thing is that you never know, right? And now, obviously, your result of your experience and your knowledge that you've acquired in, let's say, 28 years, I'm guessing you're 28 years old.
Um, all right.
said it was in my 30s. Now, I said maybe redeemed yourself. Okay.
I like your jacket. Where'd you get that jacket from? A source? It's nice, man. I like the long ones. You know, anyways,
what I was gonna say to you was, you don't know. That you will never know, to get it.
I'd say that. Yeah. So from that perspective, you can't make that argument. Because that argument is contingent.
that argument is contingent on your current state of affairs, your necessity, or you may require personally, a need to know that, you know, I personally don't work. qualify my beliefs.
You know what I'm saying? I'm just saying that you said he said we don't know. Yeah.
Yes, but I use a with this with this theological thing, which is the universe coming into existence and us having a puppet here? That we will never know. Yeah, I never said that. Okay, that
level of certainty. Okay. So what we'll never know. So, it may be one of those things we'll never know. Okay. Because right now, I believe we don't know. Okay, if we don't know. We should say, I don't know.
Okay, fine. So, what you're doing is you're generalizing human knowledge and see large gaps. So how do you how do you know that? I don't know. Cuz you said we so we use it as a collective pronoun beliefs then if you want a collective pronoun.
Belief if you like, well, I believe that we don't. You don't know. I believe that we don't know. Okay.
Anyways.
I like this, and I apologize if I come across in any. You did it. Yeah.
I'm so loving man. I love you, man. We'll get some food off there somewhere.
You tell me where you get the jacket. We just we just say he didn't he didn't pursue it to the end. Okay, what you want to say? If you want to say anything? Yeah, well, if you're saying if it's me.
It's been it's been a pleasure, man.
You
guys, make sure you subscribe to all these respective channels except for content of everything.
Except for COVID cuz they're already subscribed, bro.