Post Oxford Debate Review

The first one I wanted to quickly touch upon was this whole idea because you brought up the argument from dependency into play. Now, Alex seem to really struggle with that particular argument, in particular, the idea of necessity. So just give us shed some shed some light on to what happened there. I had done my research on Alex before I debated him, because I don't debate people, unless I do my research on them. So I'm going to forget about what I say because I've already said something that he doesn't think is the correct thing. Because there's been quite a bit of back and forth.

Recently, he's done something he said he didn't say what he said. He said, so this is what I said. He said, he said, right. So this is what he just said, He's denying the existence of contingent objects, as Cameron has defined them,

then that kind of means that the universe and everything in it is necessary, in a sense. And that would be enough because it's okay. So as you can see, I'm not sure if you heard that right. Yeah, he's making the Yeah. So he said that the universe itself is necessary. Okay. This isn't that isn't a video that he'd done before. Yeah. With someone called I don't know who I forget his name was actually entitled, a universe from nothing. Right. So why don't you he clearly said that the universe itself is necessary. Yeah. Okay. And there's no two ways about that. He said that and clear from the horse's mouth. Online. Yeah, we can all understand. Absolutely. Yeah. Since then, he's

denied that I'm not sure if he denied outright that he said it. But he said I misrepresented him by saying that he said that. I All I said was that you're saying that the universe is unnecessary existence. Now unnecessarily existence is defined as something that cannot be any other way. Yeah. And that something is self sufficient. As a result of that and eternal because Okay, let's slow slow down that let's really break this down. So no one has any qualms later. Yes. So we're using a necessary thing. Number one could not have been any other way. Yes. Right. Now, unnecessary fact. For example, two plus two equals four. Yeah, is unnecessary fact. Right. Okay. Now, if we take two

plus two equals four as a necessary factor and apply it to existence, the context of existence, then unnecessary existence is something which cannot not exist. In other words, it must always exist. Yeah. Like it, then that's why we go into eternality. Now, so it must be eternal. Yes. And self sufficient, because it does not require something outside of it to explain its existence. Absolutely. So So what you're saying is, if it wasn't eternal, and it came into being, then it would require an explanation, meaning it will be dependent and unnecessary. Yes. And so this thing is independent. Right. Okay. Right. So, if the thing is independent, then it does not require anything

else. Okay. Okay. Now, these are some of the description descriptions of God, according to Islam. It's all what God is, of course, and this is, let me underline this with 100 lines, right? Yes. We don't say Allah, you know, is only a summit. Yes. Or only? Are you? Yes. We don't see that. That's the only attribute of God.

What we're saying is that this is something for sure. I'll have some it means the Eternally Besought of all Yeah, all the self sufficient. All the independent one, yes. Well, the sovereign is a translation of Absolutely. Oh, or I'll call you, the maintainer. Right, but it has this meaning of laying everything stand because it comes from comma whom literally mean, he is the one who sustains everything else, and he does not require anything to sustain. So these are some of the Islamic Quranic descriptions of what God is. And that is in line with this, this notion of unnecessary existence, which in Arabic terminology is referred to as word you will, will do, yes. Which in our

literature, all of the Muslim scholars have spoken about it, as Allah has spoken about this term was up with Jude, even taymiyah mentioned it, and Ted Mori and many other books abundantly so something which is very much accepted in our tradition. Yes. The necessary existence? Yeah.

I'm not saying that this is all that God is. But what I'm saying is the moment you acknowledge unnecessary existence, yes. Then you cannot be an atheist anymore. Yeah. Just to give a caveat. They wouldn't be an atheist if they were to define the atheism as a naturalistic type of atheism. Yes. You know, it's, there is no creator, there is no God. Absolutely. You can extend that slightly by saying there is nothing beyond the physical. Absolutely. So I know this is a good point, because it depends now on this is a point of definitions. Now, in the beginning of the debate, he defined atheism, almost in line with agnosticism like some some people refer to as negative atheism. I don't

have enough

evidence to show that God exists. So I don't I'm not subscribing to it. Yeah, fine. If that's how you just you explain it. Yeah. But if the question is, how much of God's attributes Do you need to accept before you become a deist? Or theist? Hmm. That's the question. It's an interesting point. Yeah. So how much of God's attributes do you need to know all of God's attributes according to which religious scripture

might there are two processes have two objectives? One of them is to show you how atheism is an untenable belief, which is the belief that

you don't have any you don't have you don't agree with the evidence.

Yeah, have something supernatural, if you like, yeah, that puts all the natural things into existence. For example, if we take that kind of basic level, if you don't agree with the evidence, you're agnostic to that. But then you agree that there is a necessary existence at least on some level. Yes. Then is that compatible with atheism? That's a question. I'm not saying that that belief in necessary existence is compatible with God as per the Quranic discourse is only compatible with one or two, maybe three aspects of what we understand your attributes of God. Yeah, but it's not compatible with atheism is the point. And it's also not compatible with what he said in in the other

part of his discussion where he said that the universe

came into existence from nothing. Yeah. Because if the universe came into existence from nothing, then it's not eternal anymore. Yeah. And remember, we said that the universe is if it's necessary, it must be it. So what you're saying is, is as soon as you say it came into being, yes, you you right at that moment, you deny necessity, because like we said, it's for something to be necessary absolutely can't come into being regardless of if it's from nothing or whatever you want to call it. As soon as you said it begins. straightaway, immediately, it becomes contingent, independent. Yeah.