Inquisitive Atheists Asks Mohammed
Channel: Mohammed Hijab
File Size: 21.71MB
is either dependent or independent. You accept the premise Yeah.
dependent on something for its existence or independent on itself.
So independence is another one's not dependent.
So we look at, we believe that the universe is independent. So therefore not dependent on something else was existence, second position. Okay, so how can you justify that position with evidences
only observe things from inside the
everything is an instantaneous things happen, and they don't affect other
So, there is
of energy outside of your job universe that exists within the universe total.
That will never have any
Okay, listen, so there is no dependency. Okay, inside you. I'm not saying my definition of dependence is that it's not that
thing a must be dependent upon things that for why I'm saying is, I think a maybe dependent upon thing bc up until that point, something else? Yeah, so the example you've given is that in the context of the universe, you have something in like, let's say, a place of the universe, which is not dependent upon something else in another place, the universe?
Must be all right. So what I'm saying is that, generally speaking, those might be the case. Indirectly informally. It doesn't mean that it's lacking in any kind of dependent thing. So it is dependent upon something else. So my, my contention is that everything within the Universe, and Everything you've experienced within the universe, is necessarily In fact, dependent upon something else.
That's my contention. Everything here. The tree tree, you believe the Big Bang?
Or something like it is?
Big Bang, the Big Bang? The Big Bang, or some equivalent creation is unique. There is no there's no other other No.
No, model is no, sorry.
Islamic model is not one which, which says that, right? The Islamic model
is one that believes that there was more than one, you could say heaven. Yeah. So.
Yeah. So it's not necessarily soccer and speculate about it. To be completely honest with you, I don't think you can either. I don't think we can generally, I don't think we can negate the existence of something which we have proven, exists, right? Because multiverse is an interesting theory, thing about multiverse and some people expand that to an infinite amount of universes, without any necessary reason to do that. Right? You can have a multiverse of 10 universes, no five universities have seven universities or wherever it may be, right. So in my opinion, the idea of the singularity that caused the universe to exist, it could very well be very unique. And it could very
well be a duplicate of something that happened before. Yeah.
It was another universe.
So I'm not sure.
You know, yeah, I'm not sure about it. Yeah. From an Asana perspective, it's not clear, right. But
what I want to say to you is just generally speaking, the argument as it's referred to as the argument of contingency, and some, you know, philosophers have propounded this or live knits and others, very intelligent philosophers come forward with the arguments of contingency with more than one stage. For me, it's just simply, for me, it's a simple, a simple thing, but the simplicity of it is, is as follows. If we accept that, in our experience of the universe, things within the universe, the structure of the universe, aren't necessarily contingent on other things in order for them to exist, then it does make sense to suggest that the universe itself is contingent dependent on
something else for its existence.
the idea of a
With regard to some kind of transcendent mind, some immaterial beings
doesn't seem sufficient.
It might not seem like it's
a universe creating process has created assuming
you're giving agency to something which doesn't actually exist. You know, the process itself is theirs as a result of someone or something that's put the process into existence. Unless you believe that the process exists in a vacuum.
There might be something outside of the universe, or universities or
things that are inside or outside of universities
that will have theoretically started a process. Okay, so that's why I'm saying the headings, I'm saying that that thing is, is is a
thing that was outside the universe is the transcendent. Let's just call it for the for the sake of argument, or for the sake of discussion, the transcendent. So we've talked about contingency, the universe contingent on something else is contingent on the transcendent. What is it? What are the characteristics of this transcendent output to you? That the character? Yeah, that will put you that the characteristics of the transcendent must be that the transcendent, is able to ability, right, and power kind of sovereignty, I would even say, because, frankly,
if it wasn't sovereign, or independent in its own right, then it couldn't seed a kind of contingency to other contingent activities and sovereign sovereignty independence, I've put as interchangeable, but you can use one or the other. It's not a problem.
There is a way to create something from nothing. No, only way to do that is if you are a transcendent being. Well, I mean, from nothing, which suggests that there was nothing at all right, I wouldn't say that I will say that there was something that then created something. Okay, that how that antecedent can always be there. We talked about the idea of independence. Right, right. And time, so I was saying that I sushi before. Okay, well, I don't think maybe we have
we did we teach you
guys, I put my muscle so I'm not doing anything. You're not gonna do any of that. I recognize you, Phil. Yeah. And we teach we teach.
I know you're an intelligent guy. I know you're a physicist. Isn't that? No, I know what you're saying. But I made documentaries with physicists. That's what it was. And you had this whole thing was like, Steven Hawkins, I made a film with it. Why did you not have it? Well, you did tell me about maybe you'd like to learn something? You can teach me? Right. Yeah.
I guess what I'm trying to say to him. Yeah. Is that we talked about the beginning just kind of debrief on what we were saying. Right? So we're just saying that the universe is either dependent or independent? Yep. So we looked at the evidences for both of those things dependent on something else independent, therefore not dependent on something else. Okay. So here, we talked about the fact that okay, it's independent. Why Why are they not just
not dependent on something else? That's what you said. So we looked at that we looked at
our kind of conclusion was that, from the evidence, it doesn't seem, from the experiential evidence within the framework of the universe, it doesn't seem it because everything that's in within the universe is dependent upon something else. So we couldn't make.
We couldn't say that the universe itself is independent, where everything inside of it is dependent. I guess you're saying the rules for the universe must be the same as things in the universe. Is that correct? not in all cases, not all cases. But this case? Yes. Okay.
Follow is that, so you're saying, let's say, formation, and my plan is dependent upon the formation of the circle, similar destiny for it, and so on and so forth. There is a fallacy called the fallacy of composition.
of composition. However, the fallacy of composition is only a fallacy when you know the end result. I'll give you an example. Right? For example, if you have a red wall, yeah, if I say that red bricks are put together,
and you don't have to explain the fallacy.
Everyone knows the classic composition, right? Well, I want to make a point to you, which is that say for example,
like red bricks, yeah. Or you can say like, the fallacy of composition when I say that the constant is
The constituent parts of an elephant is small, therefore the elephant is small. Yeah. Okay, good. Now, if I say the constituent parts of the red wall is the red wall is red, therefore the bricks are red. Yeah. That's not a fallacy of composition, although I'm using the same logic. So one depends how you arrive at this conclusion. Now, what I'm saying to you is that the fallacy of composition, as an informal logical fallacy only exists within a certain framework whereby there is a certainty that the small is not compatible. That's not true.
You're saying I only when you know the answer. Are you making? No?
No, no, no, no, no, I didn't say that.
I never say again, I'm saying that only if you know, the elephant is big. Can you tell me that this constituent parts of the small elephant are contradictory to his larger size? So I'm saying here, if you go back to our example of the red wall, I say that the red bricks come together to create a red wall right? Now, if I say the constituent parts of the red wall are red bricks, yeah. red bricks make a red wall. The part is compatible with the whole. So hey, I've I've generalized, it's not called composition here. You know, I've done I've done an argument and inductive argument, I've looked at a small and I've generalized it on the larger a what I'm doing with the with with this,
with the context of the universe, and the idea of dependence slash independence is the same thing. I'm saying I'm not making an argument from composition. I'm making an argument for induction, I'm saying that if we're able to look at
problems, first off, I don't think you can, you couldn't do the induction that used to train you can do because you don't have experience of universes coming into being right. I don't need it though. No, no, no, but you do. Okay. Because you're saying why don't we can infer for why see within the universe, this code because this means
to go outside.
So I apologize.
That was one of the things I'm happy actually.
That's one of the the kind of objections some people have. He call it a fallacy of composition. I wanted to be very clear that what I'm not doing is I'm not argument from I'm not arguing from composition. I'm arguing for production. What I'm saying is that, from what we can see, the universe and all the facts, we've got a large sample of infinite amount of I'm not infinite in the, in the vernacular, right? We've got a large sample of an X amount of things which are dependent upon other things, therefore, we have strong reason to believe that the universe is dependent on another thing. So we talked about the transcendent, right. And now we were at the level where we're saying the
transcendent figure must have certain characteristics. I was saying I would put you, you know, you're immediately going into a figure cannot figure entity
you're going to
still transcendence still unknown, still fine. Okay. The transcendent, the transcendent, must have certain characteristics that enable for it or I mean, for it to be a transcendent and be
able to allow other things to be dependent upon it, I would put the one thing that it would require for, for it to enable other things to be dependent upon it is independence. So why why does it require independence? Because if we don't have independence of the transcendent, then you're going to have a cycle of
dependent things. Basically, the only other thing that's completely independent regressive cycle.
The only other thing that's completely independent is nothing. Okay, but then you'd have to make the argument that the universe came into existence from nothing.
Okay, can you make the argument?
Yes. Okay. Go ahead. Please. Stop waiting on the side.
I'm just asking you to stop. What says is the first number one. What's the first number? Zero is the first number. Yes, zero. I wouldn't consider zero number
Why? Well, first of all, very, very smallest thing. Yeah.
Yes. Okay. Now I will say Where did that come from? So you're saying that zero. Okay. There's two issues here and you said negative numbers, okay. And you have everything in equal measure. both positive and negative.
numbers don't exist. Everything we think is abstract numbers. Don't
numbers are, my numbers are inherently metaphysical construct, which only exists in the context of your brain. Every subjective experiences is abstract. So I'm asking how does this link? Because if if you want to use that model, to try and prove that the universe came from nothing I'm saying to you here, how would you be able to do so when you realize that actually numbers don't even exist in a tangible sense in the world that we live?
In, you have a subjective experience.
That doesn't exist? In my experience.
So we can't use that as an evidence. There's no evidence.
And even if use numbers, you've put two zeros together, you're not gonna get one.
Yeah, we're not gonna get one. zero plus zero factorial is one.
Why would you factorize it? Why would you
do this? So why would you want to factorize the zero?
factorial? Why would you?
Why would you do it? Well, what's the poster? What is the reason why?
Yeah, how would that how would that be appropriate in the context?
I was just saying you can get by operating on zero. Yeah, I'm not saying that. You can't, you can operate on zero and get value. No problem. Yeah. Okay. Well, that's nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
I'm just saying.
being different from nothing itself. So what's the difference between the vernacular nothing? and zero is mathematical? 00 is a representation of a state of
the vernacular nothing? And if I say the vernacular, nothing, and zero nothing refers are synonyms. What would you say about?
If you applied nothing from zero to a value of everything everywhere, then yes. So in a physics sense, if we were going to use zero, because the thing is the way we use mathematics, in the applied sense, is through physics. So if I say zero, what does that indicate in physics? Would you
do physics question?
Would you agree that all numbers and concepts, everything that we think exists independent of us?
your experiences, the future? are something you're going to find out? Pretty soon.
But they exist somewhere in there some kind of abstract idea? Yeah. And we believe that
we're walking in anything memory, do you think?
walking and living memory?
Memory is being played out? interesting way. I'm, I'm trying to get my head around this interesting. Let me put it.
I'll put it differently. But I will say the memory, I always say we have predetermined to be. I just put it that way. Yeah.
You did a video on predestination.
There's a lot of amazing philosophy and theology in Islam. But half of it is beautiful, and really interesting. And half of it is a bit strange, and
nothing value judgment. That's the good thing about
come with some really interesting things. But I want to kind of summarize the argument by saying as follows, right, you can decide to agree or disagree. Right? The argument for us is that
the universe is dependent is contingent on something else. Okay. What is this thing? So we will say that this thing must be a transcendent entity, which has the propensity to bring something else, or to allow something else to be dependent upon it or contingent on it? So we will say in that context, that that thing is the universe? Is the transcendent, in your view, there's only one only one of those is it possible?
No, it's not possible. But the one is, is jealous, and this is his space.
The other ones are subordinate to that one.
I would say that the code quality thesis is impossible. Because if we say that there was no co equal or powerful entities, that's a contradiction, because the all powerful they all have absolute power. And they all agree. Now that's contradiction. If I if I was to say to you, for example, that all to be on you have absolute power of that tree. Yeah. So if I decide through will to take one branch off, but your will contradict
My will Yeah, then that will be a contradiction in the way that either that tree would not the branch would not move, you have only and you would have to, you have to have a contract, that half is your perfect now, if the if the contract is formed, then that would degenerate from my overall power status, because that would allow would force me into a compromising position. The moment I'm forced into a compromising position is the moment I've been weakened from an all powerful status to a law, there's no powerful status. Therefore, the idea of a co co equality thesis is an impossible one. And that's why outcomes raises also quite interesting in this because of constraints. This
suggests that the most simple explanation for these phenomena, whoever phenomena they may be, is the one we should take. So in that, in this context, I would put to you that there was simple explanation for the phenomena of the universe is that there's one singular, the one singular independent sovereign entity which is transcendent, and has the propensity and ability to put the universe known into existence by allowing the universe to be contingent on this independent source.
So where do you get the
all the other ideas of gods that are seemingly great greater than
one God created this one universe? Yes.
And whatever else it created, that's why we say Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar literally means God is the greatest. I mean, there's nothing literally greater than God. We say Allah, that Assad means literally that everything relies upon him, and he relies upon nothing. So in other words, he is the independent sovereign source. Yeah.
There are things that this God chose me and you both know, it is unsubstantiated. It's the religion mythology.
All right, fine, rated and gone.
Why would you think it's great? It's just a series of events not great. So I don't know No, great. It doesn't it does not equate more and in the vernacular.
conceptual sense. Yeah. If philosophically or a greater, we're talking about first to define greatness, we have to identify attributes.
Within a realm feeling.
The greatest thing not in philosophy is to have definitions. If you can't read the definition, you can still come up with a
What do I mean by greatness myself? I say that all of the attributes of God that will describe like for example, his his self sovereignty.