Propositional Logic – Part 3

Mohammed Hijab


Channel: Mohammed Hijab

File Size: 74.98MB

Share Page


AI: Summary © The speakers stress the importance of learning logic and clearing confusion, emphasizing the need to avoid making confusing "by" statements. They explore the definition of materiality and the use of "verbal" in argumentation, emphasizing the importance of understanding the definition of P and the definition of Q in determining whether a question is valid. The speakers emphasize the importance of consistency and finding one's own thing, emphasizing the significance of "any thing" in life and existence.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:06--> 00:00:33

Some article that happens a lot. But I gotta tell you guys, don't welcome to the third lesson of propositional logic, where we go through some of the most important rules that you need to know, for logical reasoning. And we have been trying to, you know, cover, obviously, what you would, what you would cover, and the basics of elwen logic, with by mixing as well, some of the things that would be we studying if you did a bit of a soul flick? Or, for example, if you did,

00:00:34--> 00:00:41

we're gonna go through today, but a little bit, Bella has all rhetoric, you'd be surprised, like we said, and I think it's important to repeat this point.

00:00:43--> 00:01:22

We actually said that it's almost impossible to completely divorce logic in a full sense, from all of the other kinds of disciplines and subject matters. So a lot of elwen logic, if you're studying mathematics, especially discrete mathematics, you will study some of these things. The things that we were talking about today, in discrete mathematics course will cover a lot of stuff. Computing, computer engineering course will cover all this stuff. But what's even more interesting, maybe for a student of knowledge from Islamic perspective, is the Arabic rhetoric. Covers actually absorbs a lot of the logical rules as well as the law. Like one of the first things you will learn when you do

00:01:23--> 00:02:01

Arabic rhetoric is the difference between how about we'll chat? How about being something which is declarative, in chat is not actually layer tabulous is called Cat if they will say, layer Tamil acidic, while cassava was not susceptible to truth and falsehood. This isn't a rhetoric book. So you open up a rest and Arabic grammar book, or we can say an Arabic rhetoric book, and it's the first thing that you'll be confronted with one of the first things you'll be confronted with. But where does this come from? It comes directly from the words of Aristotle fact, he wrote a book called The Organon. I'm not sure if you've come across it, but it's an important book, where he, he kind of

00:02:01--> 00:02:21

delineate some of these logical principles and talks about some of these things. But there's a kind of cross pollination of all things. And if someone says, Well, for the sake of argument is haram to study logic, haram was not is not allowed. Yeah, as some have said, and some do still continue to say,

00:02:22--> 00:03:01

then is it haram to study that aspect of rhetoric? Because I don't see why you haven't made that fatwa. Because a big chunk of rhetoric, Arabic rhetoric, is actually is pure logic. A big chunk of us will focus pure logic, a big chunk of mathematics is pure. So why don't you make the fatwa against these things, as well, but of course, you'd have to go and see, these are the things that are haram. And these are the things that halal, or this one's okay, because it's part of this and it becomes a confusing fatwa, to say the least. Having said that today, to try and clear the confusion, we're going to just interleave and summarize some of the things we have set in the first session and

00:03:01--> 00:03:13

the second session. The second session was particularly important because we went over two very common, kind of,

00:03:14--> 00:03:16

like, logical fallacies. Yeah.

00:03:17--> 00:03:31

And they're connected somehow to to proper way of doing things from a logical perspective. Let's start with the proper way of doing things. So modus ponens. Let's drill this as we would usually, what is modus ponens if p, then y.

00:03:32--> 00:03:34

All right, then

00:03:35--> 00:03:37

p. Therefore.

00:03:38--> 00:03:39

Okay. Okay.

00:03:41--> 00:03:46

What logical fallacy is most closely associated with this form?

00:03:48--> 00:04:06

Isn't affirming the consequent? Alright, so finally, the consequent, Okay, which one is the antecedent and which one is the consequent? This is what antecedent and which one's this? Alright. Yeah, the consequent. So, how, I mean, how would we affirm the consequent? How would this be wrong?

00:04:08--> 00:04:38

How would you make this is the correct form? So let me rub this out. Maybe? Yeah. If this is the correct form, this is modus ponens, modus tollens. if P then Q. naught Q. Well, I mean, you that's another that's another thing. Well, let's start with this first right because you said that was connected to this if p then q, okay. So you have the antecedent, you have the consequence. Now you have the antecedent therefore, you have the consequent, yeah. So okay. affirming the consequent what would have to come before Well, how would this work?

00:04:40--> 00:04:46

The policy would be Q, therefore P. Okay. So how would it how would it how would it sound out the whole thing?

00:04:48--> 00:04:59

If you then if no, no, no. Or if P then Q? Yeah. Then what if P then Q? Q. Yes. That's the

00:05:00--> 00:05:10

That's that is affirming the consequent, you're doing the opposite of what should be done. Yeah, you see what I mean? Q therefore p. Now this is called affirming the consequent.

00:05:11--> 00:05:18

Because you've jumped the gun, you've said okay, if p then q, okay? So if you're, if you're saying if p then q, right? What you're effectively saying,

00:05:20--> 00:05:26

if this condition is actualized, then this result would ensue.

00:05:28--> 00:05:30

If this okay, if I liked

00:05:32--> 00:05:35

the, if I liked the, then I'm gonna give you

00:05:38--> 00:05:54

if I take the sleeping tablet, I go to sleep. If I take the sleeping tablet, I go to sleep. Okay, so which comes before which, taking the sleeping tablet on the sleep, taking the sleeping tablet. So if I take the sleeping tablet, I've got horrible examples, but just bear with me, I'll just make it on the spot shorthand.

00:05:55--> 00:06:24

You know, if I take the sleeping tablet, I'm gonna go to sleep. I take the sleeping tablet, therefore what happens? I go to sleep. by affirming the consequent would say, Well, if I take the, if I take the sleeping tablet, I go to sleep, then you'll see what afterwards, I go to sleep, therefore I take the sleeping tablet. This doesn't it doesn't follow you see, you're affirming the consequent you're you're invert you're inverting the relationship as should be this is the consequences. We call it a fallacy. Now,

00:06:26--> 00:06:38

the fallacy of and it's very important to note this and to remember this the fallacy of affirming the consequent is related to modus ponens. Why because this jumbling if you like

00:06:39--> 00:06:48

the normal structure if p then q q therefore P. That's wrong. It should be p therefore Q. Yeah. It should be p therefore Q.

00:06:49--> 00:06:52

Okay, now, what is the other one?

00:06:53--> 00:07:40

denying the antecedent. All right. And what's that connected with? Modus tollens. So what is Waterstone's? So modus tollens is if p, then q, not q. Okay. Well, if p, then q, then q. So we start in exactly the same fashion, as we did before. Okay. That's number one, then what happens after and we negate the Q, then we negate the Q. Okay. So we're negating what? The consequent of the antecedent, consequent? When? Yes, it's consequent. Yeah. So we're negating this, therefore, therefore, not p. Is this good? Or is this bad? Is this valid? Okay, excellent. So how do I make this row wrong? What is denying the antecedent so not P in the second column, how this would look?

00:07:40--> 00:07:48

So if p then q, not P, therefore not q? Okay. So if p then q, you're saying not p.

00:07:49--> 00:07:56

Therefore, not q. So what you've done is you've done the opposite. Right? So you're saying if p, then q,

00:07:57--> 00:08:02

not P, therefore not q? You've effectively jumbled two and three.

00:08:06--> 00:08:09

Why is this problematic? Let's go back to the sleeping tablets thing.

00:08:10--> 00:08:43

Okay, how do I solve it? Give me Give me your own example. I mean, how does this So an example would be gone? Yeah. So I've got the bad examples. Yeah. If you are pious, then you pray five times a day. The correct version would be is that you do not pray five times a day. Beautiful. Oh, you are not pious, beautiful. I like this example is excellent. Yeah. So you don't pray five times a day. That's what makes you not pay us. Yeah. But if you but if I say wrong now, as I say, so then incorrectly, it would be if you are pious, then you pray five times.

00:08:44--> 00:08:50

You're not pious, therefore you do not pray. Exactly. Exactly. But you you could be

00:08:52--> 00:09:10

you could pray and still be a mean. Sorry, I've confused myself. No, no, but you're right. Yeah. But obviously, there's one one way out of this with the whole praying example. Someone could argue this is valid, but it's not true, because it's actually a reciprocal relationship. What do we call that?

00:09:11--> 00:09:13

What kind of situation is this?

00:09:14--> 00:09:15

When this reciprocity

00:09:17--> 00:09:24

like relates to a sufficient condition by conditional by conditional, excellent. So how would the biconditional look like?

00:09:26--> 00:09:34

By conditional is it looks like is represented in the following manner? You have p and q? Yeah, P one, q.

00:09:36--> 00:09:46

Equals or you can put a thing like that, right? So you could say you could argue because obviously, fine, you're right. But if you don't pray five times a day, you're not pious.

00:09:48--> 00:10:00

But it's reciprocal. Because if you're if you're if you pray five times a day, you become pious, and you're pious you pray five times a day, someone could argue so by conditional relationship, now now you both got religion.

00:10:00--> 00:10:02

Jim at forms, what you're going to be fighting on.

00:10:04--> 00:10:15

You're going to be justifying your premises. Now, both of you are going to be saying, Oh, you're more likely to be right because of this. And you're more likely to be right because of this, which shows us a very important thing. Not every valid argument is true.

00:10:17--> 00:10:19

But every true argument is one.

00:10:20--> 00:10:33

Valid now we've already covered this stuff, but it's good to just refresh our memories. But on the issue of validity, okay. Having a sound argument even is not the only condition.

00:10:34--> 00:10:45

We said, because you can't You okay, if you have some arguments true, fine. No problem. But let's say you have an invalid argument. Yes. Having an invalid argument doesn't mean what you're saying is unsound?

00:10:46--> 00:10:50

Because your argument could be invalid. But what you're saying could be true.

00:10:51--> 00:11:06

In meaning the conclusion to the final conclusion, you could you could be saying something in an invalid form. Like, some say, Okay, well, I'm making an argument. It's an invalid form. But the conclusion is a true statement.

00:11:07--> 00:11:14

Does that make sense? So validity, if something is invalid, it doesn't mean that the argument is, is false.

00:11:15--> 00:11:25

So it doesn't mean that that the statement is untrue, you can make him or you can make a series of statements in an invalid way. But what you're saying, although you're saying in a wrong way is true.

00:11:26--> 00:11:33

Is inductively true, you can you can make a false syllogism, for example, which has got invalid

00:11:34--> 00:11:43

premise, premise conclusion or whatever. But actually, the conclusion is a fact matter of fact, what can't be true. The segues nicely

00:11:45--> 00:11:49

into today's session is what what cannot be true

00:11:53--> 00:11:54


00:11:57--> 00:12:36

Now, I don't want to go into this some definitions of a contradiction is something which cannot be true in any possible world. This we're not gonna go into this. Yeah, modal definitions and stuff. We'll go with a stay with the propositional basics. And by the way, in propositional logic, our Sicilian logic and Arabic logic, we can call it islamicate logic, because the reason why we call it Arabic logic is because it was written in Arabic and Persian, like the Islamic empire had to strong languages, in the best of times, which was being used all the time, Arabic language, Persian language, okay. And then after that, obviously, the Turkish language, the Ottoman Empire, all that

00:12:36--> 00:12:53

kind of stuff. But it's not fair to call it Arabic, because that's why they call it Islamic eight, because it includes everybody. And don't forget, the majority of the scholars were actually Persian. And if you look at them had this, for instance, the only one, I think, who was a Arab was

00:12:54--> 00:13:10

Muslim, you know, of the six books of Hadith. There was one Arabic guy, all the other guys were unknown Arabs, it didn't mean to say all of those guys, or al Hassan Ali, obviously, he wrote this, even seeing all these guys were Persians. Well, at least they were writing in that language. And then you had to write Arabic as well.

00:13:11--> 00:13:12

Anyway, so Islamic Kate,

00:13:14--> 00:13:20

thing, we're going to talk about the conditions of contradiction, okay. And they usually eight conditions. But before we get to that,

00:13:22--> 00:13:39

Aristotle has a very specific definition of a contradiction, which he writes in his works, which, if I might get it out, but from my memory is something which cannot be true in any respect. And we'll talk about what you mean by any respect. Let me get exactly what you said to make sure

00:13:42--> 00:13:42


00:13:52--> 00:13:55

yeah, it's, it is

00:13:57--> 00:14:03

possible that the thing, that the same thing can at the same time belong and not belong to the subject

00:14:04--> 00:14:27

in the same respect, now, this in the same respect must be outlined. So I'm gonna write down his definition, Aristotle, Aristotle's definition, I think, is pretty good definition. There are other definitions like a compound, which is true and not true at the same compound sentence, which is true and not true at the same time, and it has a form but let's stick with one thing at that time. So we'll stick with Aristotle's definition. I think it's a pretty good definition. So

00:14:28--> 00:14:32

Aristotle is saying the following Yeah, he's saying it is impossible.

00:14:38--> 00:14:40

That the same thing.

00:14:51--> 00:14:52

Can at the same time

00:15:03--> 00:15:04

Both belong

00:15:09--> 00:15:10

and not to belong

00:15:18--> 00:15:19

to the same object.

00:15:21--> 00:15:23

There's a lot of things going on here and we're going to break it down. Yeah.

00:15:26--> 00:15:27

In the same respect

00:15:36--> 00:15:40

Okay, now, this is the definition it's important for you to I'll give you a little bit of time just to

00:15:41--> 00:15:49

write that down. But in logic, propositional logic, you have a tautology. Okay? It's otology. Do you remember how it's represented?

00:15:50--> 00:16:08

We're like this with a T. T is it's always true. I told you that was true. A contradiction, you know, in symbolic format, is actually the opposite. Like this, because the contradiction is always false. That's and what follows from a contradiction, something called the law of implosion. By the way,

00:16:09--> 00:16:44

the law of implosion is that anything follows from a contradiction. Which means if you want to if you want to make a contradictory statement, anything follows the even liveness liveness. Very interestingly, he said, you can explain everything in the world with two things, the principle of non contradiction and the principle of sufficient reason. Everything can be explained with just two things. And we're going to cover something called the proof by contradiction, very interesting, which is really the equivalent in discrete mathematics as something called Proof by contradiction. And that is the equivalent to something called reductio ad absurdum or a reductive reductio ad

00:16:44--> 00:16:53

impossible on the reductio argument, a reductio argument is basically what we said, you try and prove the opposite of the thing. And therefore

00:16:54--> 00:17:01

you prove the thing itself. So for example, let me cover that first. I think it's pretty easy. I slowly

00:17:02--> 00:17:04

if I try and cover the following statement.

00:17:06--> 00:17:17

I'm going to give you some some, some juice here, okay. And this is going to be very, very applicable. Okay. If I try and say the following thing, if I try and say, I want to, I want to prove P, okay.

00:17:18--> 00:17:23

How do I prove P, I try and prove P by proving not P, actually.

00:17:25--> 00:17:28

So, now, this is called reductio ad absurdum. I'm proving P.

00:17:29--> 00:17:33

Well, let's just say for the sake of argument, I'm proving Q, by showing not p.

00:17:34--> 00:17:42

And proving Q by showing not p. Do you see what I'm saying? Okay, so how does this actually take place? I'm doing this

00:17:44--> 00:17:46

by taking it through a proof.

00:17:48--> 00:17:53

And I'll give you a very famous example. One that obviously, was my book.

00:17:56--> 00:18:01

Might as well be shameless here. I might as well be shameless. I've mentioned in my book here.

00:18:02--> 00:18:19

I've mentioned in my book, and this is the classical arguments, classical arguments, you know, of God's existence, a lot of contingency arguments are based on the following. You say, Gottfried Leibniz, for instance, he puts us in a very explicit manner. He says, let's assume God doesn't exist.

00:18:21--> 00:18:30

So this is in this case, let's put juice to this. Let's put flesh on me. He says not p here is the equivalent of God not existing God doesn't exist. Another thing, okay.

00:18:33--> 00:18:47

Some people are going to be happy. You got some screenshots. You got some screenshots and say, look, the guy has joined the Dark Side, you know. So let's just say let's just say God doesn't call it atheism. Right. So not p is the atheistic worldview, not P God doesn't exist.

00:18:48--> 00:19:20

Now, what contradiction? Does the question, what contradiction takes place? If we assume not p. Now, that is, where the fight is, what contradiction? So Gottfried Leibniz says the following, he says, Look, you can't have a world with only contingent things. And this is exactly what happened. Cena says mostly people in society in in the history of the philosophy of religion have said, less they've used this kind of argumentation and said, let's assume God doesn't exist.

00:19:21--> 00:19:25

Why is it problematic because you can't have a world of just contingent things. Why not?

00:19:26--> 00:19:30

Now, different scholars come to different conclusions, but they're all using the same

00:19:31--> 00:19:52

proof by contradiction, effectively proof by contradiction type argumentation. If you remember in the very first thing, we weren't filming this, but we spoke about the infinite regress the infinite regress. We said Al Ghazali makes the following argument he makes it very clearly. He says it assumes two things at the same time which are contradictory. What do you remember? Do you remember what it is?

00:19:53--> 00:19:57

Let me tell you. It assumes that the inexhaustible has been exhausted.

00:19:59--> 00:19:59

So the end

00:20:00--> 00:20:01


00:20:03--> 00:20:04

has been exhausted.

00:20:06--> 00:20:09

Now, what do we mean by that? We mean?

00:20:10--> 00:20:26

If you have if there is an actual infinity of real things in the real world, what does infinity mean? He would say infinity means, yes, for instance, that though is bound, boundless things are limitless things are unlimited things. Yeah. So if you have

00:20:27--> 00:21:05

a point, which is now, this point in time, which is now assumes that the inexhaustible has been exhausted, and that is a contradiction, and it fulfills all of the conditions of a contradiction. Because these are opposite things, a contradiction must be in conflict with each other, by everyone's definition in a propositional sense in a modal sense, in our septillion sense, everyone agrees this proposition is contradictory, that the inexhaustible has been exhausted, you are seeing P and not P at the same time. That is what you are seeing a contradiction. One way of understanding and contradiction is you're saying P and not P, at the same time, it's a conjunctive phrase,

00:21:07--> 00:21:30

with selb, any jab, or affirmation and negation in the same compound? That's really what a contradiction is. A contradiction is when you put two things which are in conflict or in conflict with one another, and you put them in a conjunctive. Proposition A compound, you're seeing P and not P at the same time, that's what you're saying. So if you say, well, there can be an infinite regress or an infinite

00:21:32--> 00:21:40

amount of actual things in the real world. Al Hasan, he clearly says, you are saying and he says this definite philosopher, you're saying that the inexhaustible has been exhausted.

00:21:41--> 00:21:57

And that's a contradiction. So the the implication of not P, according to Al Hasani, not p being in this case, what the infinite regress. That's the implication. If you have an infinite regress of actual events, then you have the inexhaustible has been exhausted, that's a contradiction.

00:21:58--> 00:22:37

Even in a modal sense, you say that can that not can, that cannot exist in any world, because that's impossible. And impossible. Things cannot exist in any world. That's his argument. And it's a very strong argument, in fact, and untouchable one. So much so that I'll read a book from Graham Oppie, who he wrote a 270 to 295 page book on infinity. He is seen as the leading atheist in the philosophy of religion. And he doesn't have an answer for this question, I can just give you a summary of the book. He does not have these entrepreneurs. And after all this long talking, I'm paraphrasing. He says this whole concept has perplexed us and we don't really have an answer for it.

00:22:39--> 00:23:17

A, basically, an appeal to incredulity. We don't know about it, and whatever. This is not encouraged. And this is not incredulous. This is impossible. This is we are claiming this is impossible. And so Gottfried liveness, he makes the same kind of argumentation on this basis. Do you see what I'm saying? He says, let's assume God doesn't exist, what will ensue is a contradiction. Why? Because contingent things and then he explains them as something which requires an explanation outside of itself. And he has this whole thing it cannot, you cannot have a world with just that the buck must stop. And this is my language. No, this is actually good grammar of his language, the buck

00:23:17--> 00:23:20

must stop at what grave it refers to as

00:23:21--> 00:23:49

a necessary thing. But his way out is referred to something called a brute contingency. And that's something else we could talk about, which is impossible, it's impossible is a contradiction at ways of brute continuous anyway, talk about unnecessary contingency at the same time. So in order to try and solve this problem, the atheists have the great atheists of our time have employed contradictory methods. But this is it. You can use arguments or proof by contradiction to prove the question really is if God doesn't exist, how can we? That's really it.

00:23:50--> 00:23:55

And that's a very strong argument has been used throughout 1000s of years of human history.

00:23:57--> 00:24:11

So any questions on on the proof of contradiction? So there's two or three things we have the Aristotelian definition, we have the idea that is opposite to a tautology. And we also have the idea that it's a compound of P and not P at the same time.

00:24:12--> 00:24:23

And he was saying that Q is defined as not p. Right. So they're different. Yeah, yeah, they're different. So okay, so I mean, like, there's only two two options here. Yeah.

00:24:24--> 00:24:28

So so that's how you're affirming the opposite of the not p. Okay.

00:24:30--> 00:24:30


00:24:31--> 00:24:32


00:24:34--> 00:24:39

move on. Because it's important to note that in Islamic aid, in fact,

00:24:41--> 00:24:50

is this too much or should continue? Is okay, pace, okay. Okay. Islamic aid, philosophy or logic. There were eight conditions of a contradiction.

00:24:52--> 00:24:53

There were eight conditions.

00:24:56--> 00:24:58

And if you read out Aristotle's

00:25:00--> 00:25:08

Definition well there are all kinds of implicated in that definition and these eight conditions of a contradiction are as follows

00:25:09--> 00:25:11

and I'm going to mention this first of all

00:25:13--> 00:25:18

I'm going to write it like in Arabic and English as well yes it can I go through it this way

00:25:22--> 00:25:31

they say first of all the bog standard definition that you'll find after these works and all this is they say tila.

00:25:41--> 00:25:44

If the left will call the attain Yeah, when the job was self

00:25:55--> 00:25:55

be hyphal

00:26:04--> 00:26:08

Jakob de that he said Houma or cannibal okra

00:26:14--> 00:26:18

if you can go a little bit to your last so you can see more of the book

00:26:34--> 00:26:35

now this interesting

00:26:36--> 00:26:37

definition I'm going to explain

00:26:39--> 00:26:42

how do you attain really what is that called the year

00:26:43--> 00:26:44

is a terminological word

00:26:46--> 00:26:50

it means in in logical terms and in logical terms.

00:26:52--> 00:26:58

Really a declarative statement. Yeah. So here are saying the conflict

00:27:00--> 00:27:02

of two declarative statements

00:27:07--> 00:27:08

in such a way

00:27:14--> 00:27:22

sorry, Angela miscellania statements in affirmation or negation? Yeah. In affirmation or negation.

00:27:29--> 00:27:39

So, this goes to P and not P. Yeah. We said p or not P, you cannot have both at the same time in affirmation or negation in such a manner

00:27:48--> 00:27:49

that would entail

00:27:53--> 00:27:54

the truth

00:27:56--> 00:27:57

of one

00:27:58--> 00:27:59


00:28:00--> 00:28:01

the false

00:28:04--> 00:28:11

hood, let's just say or falsity I think falsity sounds a bit better stick it out falsity

00:28:18--> 00:28:18

of the other

00:28:24--> 00:28:25

what does this mean?

00:28:27--> 00:28:32

It means, you have two statements being made, which means

00:28:33--> 00:28:35

you have two things a compound

00:28:36--> 00:28:44

there are some things according to Aristotle according to Islamic logic and according to the actual common sense, which cannot be a contradiction.

00:28:45--> 00:29:02

And this was said in the beginning of the very in the very beginning of the session, I said if you if you study Arabic rhetoric, which is a branch of grammar is a branch of Arabic studies. Arabic is divided into three effectively Taslim, ASAF,

00:29:03--> 00:29:06

morphology, rhetoric.

00:29:07--> 00:29:10

And now grammar. Okay. If you study

00:29:11--> 00:29:34

rhetoric, that one of the first things they teach you is what's the difference between hover will insure a declarative statement, and an in sharp or kind of, I can't even translate in chat because it has like five or six different categories. And non declarative I just call it non declarative statement. Yeah, they have a declarative statement, which is, yeah, then we will sit called cap

00:29:35--> 00:29:59

that the statement itself, it can is susceptible to being true or false. Whereas an insurer isn't less feminists it's called cap lidda T. It doesn't actually is not susceptible to be improving lives because how what is the thing that cannot be and they've got five different divisions, bits and Yama and isn't it? But one of them is a tag job is another one being amazed of something

00:30:00--> 00:30:08

Because being amazed doesn't it's not actually a decorated state of affairs. One of the things which lay atoms will category that is a question. So.

00:30:09--> 00:30:15

So it was mentioned aerosols book, as mentioned the books of grammar and so on or rhetoric.

00:30:16--> 00:30:18

If I asked you a question, I can't be right or wrong about this question.

00:30:20--> 00:30:33

Yanni, I can't ask you a question, then you say that's wrong, effectively. Technically speaking, there cannot be a wrong question can't be invalid, and in the sense that you can have a question with an incorrect presupposition.

00:30:35--> 00:30:47

You can have a contradictory presupposition. But you cannot have a question which is contradictory in and of itself? Because the question doesn't have is not susceptible to contradiction from that perspective.

00:30:48--> 00:30:52

That's why asking questions is one of the safest things you can do in a debate.

00:30:55--> 00:31:30

Because no one can say to you, look, that's wrong. What do you mean, that's wrong? Because what is an assumption? Your assumptions are wrong? But you cannot say My question is wrong. I have questions that I'm asking, how can you tell me my questions are wrong? I'm not even making a statement from a declaration perspective. i How could be what is it wrong? From what perspective is invalid? It's a question. Is it wrong? Because it entails or it is a contradiction? How could it be a contradiction? When it's not a compound of P and not P? It's not, it cannot be a contradiction from that perspective. But if I asked, Can God,

00:31:31--> 00:31:45

lift a rock? So create a rock so heavy that you can't lift? It's not a wrong question. But the question is, has a wrong assumption or contradictory assumption? Why is it contradictory assumption that such a thing, such a rock can exist?

00:31:47--> 00:32:00

Or like if I say, Can the Eternal One have a beginning? It's a good question. But it assumes the ability that is that is a possible state of affairs, the possibility of such the affairs?

00:32:01--> 00:32:10

You see, there's an assumption of the question. So I can say the assumption is flawed. But that's the furthest I can take it with a question. A declarative statement.

00:32:14--> 00:32:15


00:32:16--> 00:32:23

if you're making a combination of declar declarative statements, they're going to be right or wrong, depending on

00:32:24--> 00:32:42

how they come together. Okay. So we said, this is a bog standard definition in the books of logic. Yeah, of what a contradiction is. And you can see it's effectively telling you, where you have a state of affairs of P and not P other for self and each happy affirmation and declaration and what do you call it,

00:32:44--> 00:32:49

negation? Where those two things are compounded, that you have there in you have a contradiction.

00:32:50--> 00:32:59

But they take it further. So are you guys okay with this? Can we rub it out? Because there's more to be said, they take it further by saying, look, there's a conditions of a contradiction.

00:33:00--> 00:33:02

And the eight conditions of a contradictions is the following.

00:33:03--> 00:33:28

And look, a lot of this stuff is kind of common sensical. But you know, what, to be honest, is useful. And it's not in the books of predicate logic up or even propositional logic. It's in the book of Islamic logic and I thought it's a good introduction to have because I swear to God, people make these mistakes all the time. People claim this contradictions because they don't understand these eight conditions. But if you understand the eight conditions

00:33:31--> 00:33:31


00:33:35--> 00:33:39

then you don't have this problem. If I say for instance

00:33:41--> 00:33:43

the first one is that it has to be

00:33:45--> 00:33:46

the same subject matter

00:33:53--> 00:33:57

Mozilla in Arabic so module Yeah. So if I say ally

00:33:59--> 00:34:00

you standing up

00:34:07--> 00:34:09

and I say Osman

00:34:11--> 00:34:12

is not standing up

00:34:16--> 00:34:18

a fool might say this is a contradiction.

00:34:22--> 00:34:24

Say well, we're not talking about the same thing here guys.

00:34:25--> 00:34:30

You might be using the same language okay. But we certainly are not speaking about the same thing.

00:34:31--> 00:34:35

Okay, so that one everyone should be okay with so the first one is subject matter okay.

00:34:39--> 00:34:40

The second one is

00:34:44--> 00:34:45

the same predicate

00:34:49--> 00:34:50

and this is called Mamula.

00:34:53--> 00:34:56

So if I say, Zaid

00:34:58--> 00:34:59

is climb

00:35:01--> 00:35:06

Actually this is exactly the same example I need to give an example. Let's say Zed

00:35:09--> 00:35:10

is jealous

00:35:13--> 00:35:14

okay ze the sitting down

00:35:20--> 00:35:23

okay. And then I say no Abu Bakr

00:35:27--> 00:35:29

is dancing

00:35:33--> 00:35:45

is two different situations completely, the predicate is different even Yeah, we have Zaid here, well, locker here is completely different situation. Okay. All right, this is the second condition.

00:35:48--> 00:35:50

The third or fourth conditions are very, very easy.

00:35:52--> 00:35:55

Which is mechanism and basically place and time.

00:35:57--> 00:35:58

Place in time

00:36:08--> 00:36:08

if I say

00:36:11--> 00:36:16

I mean actually I'm I'm seeing too many things. This is an easy one. What do you guys reckon with placing time?

00:36:19--> 00:36:29

Smart is in England, Ali is in France. Okay. But let's say for the sake of time, yeah. There's verse in the Quran. That's about the day of judgment.

00:36:31--> 00:36:46

And some of the fools they say, oh, in the Quran, they have judgment. You said no one's going to speak by another verse that says they will say this. What's going on here? Is this a contradiction? If not best said, well, actually, the devil judgments how long?

00:36:48--> 00:36:57

Have transient 50,000 years in Canada, Yeoman, Canada. Cordaro comes in alpha Santa and the Quran says, right 50,000 years play. So in 50,000 years.

00:37:01--> 00:37:10

Can you Can there be a time where people are speaking in some time where they're not speak? The time where this one, of course is the time for this? If I say

00:37:11--> 00:37:13

I'm in a police interrogation.

00:37:16--> 00:37:21

And the officer comes in with all pomp and arrogance, and he says, What are you doing on Tuesday?

00:37:23--> 00:37:25

I woke up and so the in breakfast, you know.

00:37:27--> 00:37:38

And then he went out he came back, he said, so what were you doing on Tuesday, said I was watching dinner I was watching EastEnders. So but I you said you're doing breakfast? There's a contradiction now. Now you're unreliable person.

00:37:39--> 00:37:49

I said, you said Tuesday, he didn't say at what time? And Tuesday's 24 hours? I could have been doing lots of things in that time. Unless you don't know the basics of logic, in which case, I recommend you to Sapiens

00:37:51--> 00:38:02

course. I mean, because you can have differing things, things which are in conflict, no problem, so long as it's in different times.

00:38:06--> 00:38:07

If I say look, I mean,

00:38:08--> 00:38:10

I went to this place, and I went to that place.

00:38:11--> 00:38:23

Where are you? I'm in London. And then well, you call later on us? Where are you? I'm in that place. Or he's in this place. And that was like you said, No problem, that that person is in this place, and that other person is in that place?

00:38:25--> 00:38:40

Where are the Chinese people? And I said the Chinese people are in Morocco, and the Chinese people are in Japan. And the Chinese people are in this place with that. So it's a contradiction. How could you be in so many different places? Because there's so many of them. And there's what's the problem.

00:38:42--> 00:38:49

So something can be in more than one place and fulfill conflicting functions, do different things.

00:38:50--> 00:38:55

And they can be in different times based on the journey is common sense. And really and truly

00:38:56--> 00:38:57

any questions on this?

00:38:59--> 00:39:00

It's pretty simple.

00:39:01--> 00:39:15

Pretty simple thing. For the second one. Can you give an example with a subject matter citizen? What would the time or place know the second example? Same predicate? Second contradiction. Second condition condition?

00:39:16--> 00:39:27

Are you want us to go back? Yeah, we'll come we'll come let's just finish all the eight and then we'll go we'll go. So, is everyone okay with these conditions over okay. The next ones

00:39:28--> 00:39:33

is what they say in relation to a thing away offer means what you add to something else

00:39:35--> 00:39:38

okay. So, the next one is the lead offer right.

00:39:42--> 00:39:46

But then, it depends on what it so in relation to something. If I say

00:39:47--> 00:39:55

look, if alpha and this is Arabic grammar effectively, right. It offer you have moved off and you have moved off really? It often means

00:39:56--> 00:39:59

sorry, it should be like this it offer Yeah, it means

00:40:01--> 00:40:02

It's a relational

00:40:04--> 00:40:07

thing. It means in relation to Yeah.

00:40:10--> 00:40:19

Usually, it's when you add one thing to another, effectively you adding your leaf means to add something to something else. Okay? So in relation to one thing, so I could be

00:40:21--> 00:40:27

a father, in relation to my son, but I'm a son in relation to my father.

00:40:28--> 00:40:37

So a fool could say, Well, how could you be a father and a son at the same time? I say, I'm a father in relation to my son and the son in relation to my father. This is fine.

00:40:39--> 00:40:43

And you can see how the Trinitarians may say, Okay, now you understand.

00:40:47--> 00:41:21

But no, because they're not saying in relation to anything. They're saying, He is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He's not the father only in relation to the Son, the Son religion, that Holy Spirit. No, they're saying he's making a claim, but the father in relation to the son and the son in relation to the Father. Now, if I say, can you be a father and a son at the same time, you can be a father and a son at the same time, from one perspective, from one perspective, which is a relational perspective. In other words, so long as there is relationships that you have, which means that there is no

00:41:23--> 00:41:26

one state that you need to be in effectively No, at all times.

00:41:28--> 00:41:37

Are come to a lot of the discussion of nominalism which is connected to this, because someone will say, you're not there's no such thing as fatherhood anyway.

00:41:38--> 00:41:45

I mean, someone could say an anomaly was because he wasn't the father doesn't exist in a substrate. Fatherhood is not there any.

00:41:46--> 00:41:49

It's just the concept of fatherhood

00:41:50--> 00:42:05

is just an imposition. It's something we put the father who doesn't actually exist. Someone could argue, but the relationship because a father in relation to the Son Son relation to the Father. Okay, that's not a contradictory statement at all. Does that make sense?

00:42:12--> 00:42:19

And there's another thing, which is Bill cola and Bill Farrell. So what number was that? Was that number five for number six?

00:42:20--> 00:42:25

Not I couldn't be number four. Was it? Same subject matter predicate place time we've placed in

00:42:26--> 00:42:32

two different ones. Yes. So is it number five? This is number six. Number six. Alright, so number six. Now we've got

00:42:34--> 00:42:39

another thing. They say Bill Cooper and Bill fell. And that really is potential and actual.

00:42:46--> 00:42:47

Bill Charlize

00:42:50--> 00:42:51

and Bill Koba.

00:42:55--> 00:42:57

There's two things bill, and Bill cola.

00:42:59--> 00:43:03

So I may have the potential to do something, but I might not do it.

00:43:05--> 00:43:11

For example, say look Osman can write, can read and write, but he's not reading and writing.

00:43:12--> 00:43:14

So how can you do something but he's not doing it.

00:43:17--> 00:43:22

He has the potential, the Cova. If you like the ability,

00:43:23--> 00:43:25

the capability.

00:43:27--> 00:43:32

Having the capability to do something is not the same as doing it, doing it.

00:43:34--> 00:43:42

So for example, this comes in some of the key the discussions say, Well, you've heard this, you might think this is so basic, why would anyone challenge this?

00:43:43--> 00:43:51

This is one of the arguments some Christian apologists use. So if God is loving, who then you have to love, you have to have a trinity. So you can always love somebody.

00:43:53--> 00:43:55

You know what I mean? Now, you might think this is a bad argument.

00:43:58--> 00:43:59

It is a bad argument.

00:44:03--> 00:44:18

Because if you put someone in a desert island, okay. And he's a loving person, I'm a kind, compassionate person. Okay, you put me on a desert island, there's no object that I need to love. I don't need to love anybody. Right?

00:44:19--> 00:44:43

Yet have I lost my ability to laugh? Have I stopped being a loving person because I'm on a desert island, I haven't stopped being a loving person. I can be if you put me on a desert island, I'll still be compassionate. I'll be loving, but I just have the ability to do it. That capability. I'm not actualizing that behavior. It's not a contradiction, say, Well, if you don't have an object where you can do the thing to therefore you're not that thing.

00:44:44--> 00:44:45

That's false.

00:44:50--> 00:44:59

And I want to talk about even 10 years discussion on the issue of HELOC and Harlock. And boy, he and he doesn't make this irrational argument but he he makes an argument that if God

00:45:00--> 00:45:11

Little Halak and he always creates and He says morphologically, the word Hala means to always create, therefore he had to always create. Someone may say then in response to Antonia,

00:45:12--> 00:45:14

but Allah is how far and so on the same way when

00:45:15--> 00:45:25

I'm responding to him and to me, I say, Well, if Allah, Allah, therefore he had to always create Allah is also far which means you have to always what forgive.

00:45:26--> 00:45:31

Which means equality between me of his view, you could argue one of the intelligences, there has to be some other life forms out there.

00:45:32--> 00:45:37

There has to be some aliens that Allah was was forgiving. Maybe that's an entailment of him and Samia,

00:45:39--> 00:46:11

because it's I'm not saying it's what he said he never said this aliens entertainment. I'm saying if you're saying is Allah's Halak, because he's always creating the potential must translate always into actual and you're using it here to say that Allah has her luck, then I can say, well, Allah how far he must always be Yanik forgiving, and therefore there must be an object of forgiveness all the time. So you'll be surprised this distinction of Koba Anil fell, or the capability of potential the ability to do something and the actual actualizing it This distinction is important, actually the studies

00:46:13--> 00:46:20

and you can see that this distinction stops people from making contradictions, especially with the SIFAT of Allah subhanho wa taala.

00:46:25--> 00:46:33

Of course even sent me as a very long discussion just for this, Yanni on he has a whole shot of the hadith of can allow me a conduit now who can Ashram

00:46:34--> 00:46:59

is Imran Hussein's hadith is talking about Allah was then there's nothing with him and his Ash was on the water. He's, he says, Well, actually the ash, the Throne of Allah was on the water, which means the water was there, which means the ionization, which means that and you can say it's convincing, or you can say it's not convincing. But he does argue the matter from a logical perspective. And to know these concepts is important, because now you can engage with these theological discussions.

00:47:03--> 00:47:05

That was number seven, right? And number eight

00:47:07--> 00:47:07

is in a

00:47:09--> 00:47:12

using conditionality. So for example,

00:47:15--> 00:47:16

you can say,

00:47:18--> 00:47:21

Ali is successful

00:47:23--> 00:47:24

if he studies.

00:47:26--> 00:47:32

Now, you can't say, well, he's successful if he studies and he's successful, if he doesn't study at the same time.

00:47:34--> 00:47:39

You cannot say he is successful if he studies and then say, well, actually, he's successful if he doesn't study as well.

00:47:42--> 00:47:53

Does that make sense? This is a contradictory statement, you can say not say you cannot condition two things which are a problem because then you go back to P and not P P plus not p which is a contradiction.

00:47:57--> 00:48:04

So this is the last these are the eight conditions of a contradiction. Now, I want you to

00:48:06--> 00:48:09

speaking with the person next to you, yes.

00:48:12--> 00:48:13

But the last one,

00:48:14--> 00:48:36

the last one, is it based on the definition. So if we say Ali is a Muslim, if he drinks Alli, drinks alcohol, Aliza Muslim, if he doesn't drink alcohol, then is it just semantics when we're talking about what it means to be a Muslim? Is that not okay, you're making contradictory statements here? Yeah. You're making contradictory then you're confusing the person. You're saying things which are false.

00:48:37--> 00:48:51

Islamic theological perspective, you're, you're committing a sin, but you're not outside the folder. Okay, so can we go back to how back was the book? How back and remember what you said here? And this is actually quite important. How back says the following.

00:48:54--> 00:48:58

About contradictions, let me just get it for you. Because I think it's okay.

00:48:59--> 00:49:40

But actually, let's see categorization of consistency. Because in a sense, it's, he says, Look, a set of sentences is logically consistent if and only if there is at least one interpretation under which all sentences of the set are true. So remember, this is quite important, because we may be making sentences, which you can interpret, like I said, these eight conditions, okay? In a way, it's showing you how the interpretation can be true. Because you can look at it, for example, what's not mentioned here, which you can also mention is that part of the whole, I say, for instance, this book is bad. Chapter Eight is bad party, chapter eight of this book is not no good. But the book is good.

00:49:41--> 00:49:59

Now, these two sentences are contradictory, but I'm talking about part of the book and then a whole of the book. And it is so long as you can find one interpretation. If I say this book is bad, this book is good. If I can, if I can find a contextual equal sign riff or something like

00:50:00--> 00:50:05

contextual marker, which indicates that I'm talking about two different things in two different contexts.

00:50:06--> 00:50:27

Then you can make excuses for contradictions, part and hold time in place, conditionality and non conditionality, relational situations, whatever, maybe, if you cannot find an interpretation, that's where there is a contradiction. If I say I exist, and I don't exist, this is a contradiction. Now, a skeptic community look,

00:50:29--> 00:50:38

I exist and I don't exist. At the same time. P and not P are the same type of compound contradiction. I accept this, then what do we have the law of

00:50:40--> 00:50:43

implosion, anything follows from a contradiction?

00:50:44--> 00:50:49

And if there is, if someone is willing to accept a contradiction, logically speaking, there's a law.

00:50:50--> 00:50:54

Anything follows you can say whatever you like. Now, you can say whatever you like.

00:50:58--> 00:50:59

I don't even want to speak to anymore.

00:51:01--> 00:51:03

You know what I mean? So if I say, Look,

00:51:04--> 00:51:07

do you accept that the inexhaustible can be exhausted?

00:51:09--> 00:51:12

He says, I accept it. So you accept the contract, you accept P and not P?

00:51:13--> 00:51:20

Yes, I accept it. I can't the conversations done. Now, now things have to get physical for you to understand.

00:51:21--> 00:51:24

If you if you do not learn, you must feel

00:51:26--> 00:51:50

now it has to go from I know your pain. So it has to go from happy to angry Okay, that's it is done now. Because if you're willing to accept a contradiction, that's the conversation is finished. But what I'm saying is, so long as somebody is able to find it into interpretation with a contradiction doesn't apply. The Trinity doesn't afford you. The thing is, I want to just make a point here, both atheism and the Trinity contain contradictions. That's the problem.

00:51:51--> 00:52:19

Polar theism and atheism, Christianity, Christianity, the the other alternative to other proselytizing religion in the world, the evangelizing religion in the world apart from Islam, that's saying to the people, come and be me. Be come and be me. We welcome you. It contains a country of a pure contradiction. A pure country, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. That's a country it is a pure contradiction.

00:52:21--> 00:52:22

Because the subject matter is the same.

00:52:23--> 00:52:40

God you're talking about God? It's not all relational. None. There's no, there's not relational, you are saying is God, God has a meaning. And it has a form. That's it though your definition hulless, you've contradicted yourself. The atheists who say contingent things can exist,

00:52:41--> 00:52:48

ad infinitum, ad infinitum. Or infinite actually is can you contradict yourself live with it, enjoy it holiday, live with that?

00:52:49--> 00:52:53

Do you know what I mean? A policy as most contradicts. That's why Islam

00:52:55--> 00:53:11

was the 50 left and cathedra that's the Quran says they would have found anywhere contradictions, so only religion, which actually even that I know of any, which makes the challenge. And this is so powerful, the Annie, that Islam even makes that challenge. It's the only religion where the book is saying that if this has been from other than God,

00:53:12--> 00:53:16

it would have been in many contradictions. And I spoke to Bob ermine,

00:53:17--> 00:53:22

you know, famous bottom and yeah, who wrote this? He says, Well, I'm not really convinced.

00:53:23--> 00:53:25

You know, because blah, blah, blah.

00:53:26--> 00:53:53

Because even a phone book, he said, even a phonebook has numbers inside of it. And that's got no contradictions in there. That's what it says. So I said, What, if you remember the if anyone watched that, I use what we said, is a necessary condition, but it's not a sufficient condition number one, and number two, one of my friends call me and said, His example of the phone book was actually quite a bad example. Because actually, within one year, all those numbers would be wrong.

00:53:56--> 00:54:04

After one year, is there the phone book you call the numbers? It's not Bob is John, how you change your number? Ah, so there's

00:54:05--> 00:54:37

a kind of a laugh going on. What I'm saying is Islam is the only religion which stresses that if a religion has to be true, it cannot contain this contradict, if it's from God, it cannot. It's not saying it's the only thing. The Quran doesn't say, Look, it says, Look, I'm an anti hydrilla healer, if you have to live and Kathira it doesn't say is the only prerequisite God can say two words, no contradiction. I can claim to be a prophet and that's it. Was that your God now? Yeah. And you know, you're not prophet is a necessary but not sufficient condition. But shows you Subhanallah even on the clearest tenants

00:54:38--> 00:54:42

you can by identifying what a contradiction is,

00:54:43--> 00:54:57

how to define it, what the conditions of it are, you can do all the data you want to do, because how powerful contradictions so what is the conviction P and not P at the same time you believe in that? I don't believe in God. I mean, yeah. So the question

00:54:59--> 00:54:59

is it

00:55:00--> 00:55:12

case that nowadays, like the new atheist state, he basically even denied a definition of contradiction. Like, for example, the cat in the box, not in the box. Yeah, but I haven't read that.

00:55:13--> 00:55:22

I haven't read that. If they did that it will be finished. It'll be gone. I mean, they don't say out loud, but they imply it all the time.

00:55:23--> 00:55:41

If they want to go that far line with only 2000. Sure. Yeah, that's floating this car. And like, you know, you study in quantum like, they always go on. Yeah, sure. They always bring, bring that topic up. Okay, great. So the quantum objection, you would, you wouldn't say, like, look, to approach quantum mechanics, they have to have axioms,

00:55:42--> 00:55:56

those axioms are going to have to be coherent, if they're not coherent, they're not going to be able to even achieve anything. So remember what he said from a contradiction, anything follows, you can make a falsehood. The Quran says the so in other words, just on the quantum point,

00:55:57--> 00:56:28

what they are missing is the following. You've got a micro theory and then you macro theory, they need a theory of everything that through that combines it, they cannot use the incredulity as an evidence because we don't have a theory which combines the micro and a macro. Therefore, contradictions can exist it impossible world. Because if you really believe that the statement that you're making would be you're trying to be consistent in the statement that you're making. You're trying to use coherence if you if you abandon coherence, anything follows fine, whatever say what do you want to do we want the Quran says lay lay at T Hill Belton mania day, he will even have a very

00:56:28--> 00:56:41

interesting terminology, that falsehood doesn't come to it at the Quran itself, from before it or after it is truth in all of its interpretations. is true, fully true.

00:56:43--> 00:56:44

It's fully true.

00:56:45--> 00:56:49

And you can see now the significance of that. You know what I mean?

00:56:51--> 00:56:52

Any other questions

00:56:53--> 00:56:53

on that?

00:56:56--> 00:57:07

So what I'll do now is I'll give you guys five minutes. And in whatever way you like to, it's gonna be a bit of a difficult, maybe 10 minutes difficult task, but using a kind of reductio argument.

00:57:09--> 00:57:48

Use a reductio argument against either policies, Christianity, or atheism. You can use whatever reductio argument but appeal to the idea of a contradiction in the opposite, or the alternative appeal to the idea that the alternative means a contradiction. So imagine that you're speaking to an atheist noun or policy. Is there a Christian? Yes. And how would you use what I've just spoken about today with you? How would you how would you use that you can use some of the examples we gave, but you can just make it your own. To show them that the opposite of for example, one God entails a contradiction. Just a quick one on the difference between mold and mildew. Ah, yeah.

00:57:49--> 00:58:03

So we said that is real is roughly translated as subject. This one is, I don't want to say object. I don't want to say object. But in, in that whole, it's the equivalent of hover, okay. Which means what is

00:58:05--> 00:58:19

it is the object in a way is the object, but it's not that kind of is most net in what you call it in rhetoric. So let me give you an example. In English what this all means. Yeah. Mobile is subject. So if I say

00:58:21--> 00:58:22

l incent.

00:58:24--> 00:58:27

Yeah, is human being the human?

00:58:28--> 00:58:28


00:58:30--> 00:58:36

In Greek logic, or let's just say even islamicate logic and stuff. They used to call this the human being the rational.

00:58:38--> 00:58:38


00:58:40--> 00:58:43

or the high when I was a rational animal, sorry, rational animal.

00:58:44--> 00:58:47

The rational animal. That's the reason say.

00:58:51--> 00:58:58

So if I say how insane why not? The rational is a sorry, the human being is, hey, when

00:58:59--> 00:59:00


00:59:02--> 00:59:05

it's basically the rational animal, the rational animal.

00:59:06--> 00:59:16

Yeah. So the human is the rational animal. The human is the subject, which means what Madhwa the rational animal is the Muhammad.

00:59:20--> 00:59:26

That's the situation it was a cover. It's what he would be like, he is a rational animal. That is what he is.

00:59:30--> 00:59:45

So if I say the human in this case, let's say alley, right. That's the subject alley. The object we'll call it the harbor or the mall here in the situation is let's say he's either dancing. Or let's say he's sitting. Yeah.

00:59:47--> 00:59:52

Now, if I say he's dancing and sitting and if it's the same time and place you have conviction, yeah.

00:59:53--> 00:59:58

What if I say he's, if I you know, if I say he's, if I change this

01:00:00--> 01:00:00


01:00:01--> 01:00:06

he's sitting Ali is sitting Ali is dancing is no problem. But if you have them both at the same time you have contradiction

01:00:07--> 01:00:09

cannot be doing both at the same time

01:00:12--> 01:00:36

and place in relationally, and all that kind of stuff, right. So you have to combine the conditions. But effectively, that's what we're talking about. That's the difference between mobile, I just want to make that very clear. The second condition is just that the hardware has to be the same. So you're talking about the same thing. At the same time, same place everything. Yeah, exactly. And is the same, then you have a contradiction? Yeah. Yeah. And if he's if you say he's standing and sitting at the same time, you have contradiction.

01:00:37--> 01:00:37


01:00:41--> 01:00:49

Are you standing at least dancing? Yeah. Taking into account time and place, because I mentioned two different names, right. Yeah. That was the problem. Yeah.

01:00:53--> 01:00:53


01:00:55--> 01:01:14

why I know when I was doing it, it was something to do with like, active and passive verbs. And be careful but I will my firewall s web module as well. Yeah. So in order to call it the you've got my folder here, you've got my folder we've got the file and you've got Magneto the module.

01:01:15--> 01:01:28

Damage was passive. Yes. So Koulibaly como si mo Quran Allah katiba is quoted as passive now quotevalet camassia is Bruton prescribed upon you the fasting right? So that's passive. Yeah. If I say

01:01:29--> 01:01:33

get up to who are like I have prescribed on you, or

01:01:34--> 01:01:41

kettlebell NFC, LA, Rama and the Quran, Allah has has written upon himself mercy now is active here.

01:01:43--> 01:01:51

So yeah, very similar sounds anyways different. Be careful that some of the same things only if you're studying Arabic grammar.

01:01:53--> 01:02:02

One word means different. Something different. In rhetoric is the same word, but it means different thing. And what sunnah, has complete different connotations in Hadith, and is

01:02:03--> 01:02:08

that doesn't fit. So these are some of the logical words more than a terminological word

01:02:10--> 01:02:12

that Kadia is very similar to

01:02:14--> 01:02:19

harbor in not a harbor now, I'll cover in rhetoric,

01:02:20--> 01:02:34

which is a declarative statement. You've got the same word had been used. You got more credit, and how about and grammar. But the harbor means something different and in rhetoric as it does in grammar. So you have to know the differences.

01:02:35--> 01:02:42

I think there wasn't who as well as like seven different. Yeah, that's different. I'm saying like, these are key words, do you know what I mean? So just be careful that when you're when you're studying Islam, be careful of that stuff.

01:02:45--> 01:03:00

Even even in propositional logic, it's you got to be careful, because some words that can be used improperly in English propositional logic, they have a different meanings. Like for example, the word contingency. That's why I don't like the reason why I don't like to use the word I use word dependency on purpose.

01:03:01--> 01:03:03

Like in the in the book,

01:03:04--> 01:03:13

the book, I use the word dependency because the word contingency has a connotation in propositional logic. I've read some in the books of logic propositional logic.

01:03:14--> 01:03:47

I do but in the newest formulation, I'm using the word dependency now. If I use contingency, I will caveat it and say this is what I mean by it. And I don't mean by it and all that kind of thing. Because in for example, in propositional logic, someone could say, well, contingency means X, Y and Zed. It could be could not be it could be Danny could have a false contingency. You can whatever, yeah. But as I'm not using that usage, though, I'm using it in a completely different use. So to try and avoid all that nonsense. I just say, okay, use the word dependency. It's not even a propositional term. You will not, you're gonna, you're gonna you're gonna find terms like,

01:03:49--> 01:03:53

you know, contingency in propositional logic. You'll not find some like dependency in there really.

01:03:54--> 01:04:08

While you're writing about parts and about like, it is a simulator. Yeah, yeah. So that's why I try and avoid terms which someone can do the fallacy of equivocation. Yeah. Effectively, they say, Well, you met this, but you meant that and you met this boy. And, boy, it's like,

01:04:09--> 01:04:13

that happens everywhere. Here's what they'll do. They'll say you met that and you meant this and you were

01:04:15--> 01:04:39

just, you know, just Just what I say I've tried to exam have someone use exactly the terms that I'm using and the language that I'm using because if you start importing your own language, then you can play around with it. That's what it will tell me I was very very careful with that kind of thing. So what do you mean by and then he spends like her not liking it not in a Jordan Peterson sense because that was because even though I do he said Jordan Peterson when he's speaking to me, what do you want to do? Do I don't think do has a definition like that.

01:04:40--> 01:04:48

It was like one of those things that it doesn't it doesn't really it's not it's a kind of, I cannot remember the grammatical thing. But it became possible in this

01:04:49--> 01:04:55

statement. What do you mean they do is a self defeating statement using the word do to ask the question itself?

01:05:00--> 01:05:04

Hello, yeah, and then he doesn't understand like, How ridiculous is

01:05:05--> 01:05:21

postmodern it is but even not even Derrida would go that far. That's like extreme deconstruction. That's a brilliant assessment. It's true. So okay, let's, let's get to it together, guys. Because there's maybe one more thing we need to cover, which is cool, cool little humps. I don't know if we're gonna cover it or not. If we do cover it, we've covered a lot.

01:05:22--> 01:05:52

I look at this book, this book again and see if there's anything that I ought to cover that I haven't covered. But I do not feel like you've come a long way. You do not feel like you've now you're armed with some serious bit of refinement. But it's if someone now claims that you're contradicting yourself, who's the burden, the burden of proof is upon whom? To show that the one who's claiming this, if someone says you're contradicting yourself, say how sometimes by just asking someone to show how you how you allegedly contradicting yourself, they will find it so difficult.

01:05:54--> 01:05:57

That's remember asking questions is always safer than making the arguments.

01:05:59--> 01:06:06

Yeah, okay. So give me like 10 minutes, and then we'll come back. Do you guys want to present first? Do you represent first go?

01:06:07--> 01:06:41

Okay, really, really have no, just no problem? Yeah. We said that like an atheist argument? How would you how would you use proof of contradiction? Or like, deductive arguments against for example? Yeah. And atheists, I think we can go back to a basic ultimate question, which is, you know, can we have something that comes from nothing? Can something come from nothing? So I think about, hey, is this reductio ad absurdum? Or is this contradiction? Yeah, I think there's, there's one way we can do it, which is, if we were to assume that something can come from nothing, then this would lead to absurdities in the real world, how what exactly.

01:06:42--> 01:07:12

You know, because it would mean that at any point in time, you know, anything could happen or beautiful. And, you know, or if I have, you know, things saved somewhere, then that could go missing, you know, just just different. William Lane, Craig esque type rationalization. I don't think it's from personally I don't think this is wrong. But if, if we assume you're saying if they say yes, if not p here is something can not come from nothing. Because if we assume that something can come from nothing, then this will lead to absurdities. Which is that,

01:07:13--> 01:07:17

obviously a response to this and to William Lane, Craig would be that we don't have nothing to play with here.

01:07:18--> 01:07:37

How do we know if something comes from nothing or not? Because we're not dealing with nothing? Because he already says, for example, Craig would say, well, trees would pop out of nowhere. But is it really nowhere? Someone could say because we have cosmos. So the argumentative burden is it's not as strong as for example, what we were talking about before, right.

01:07:39--> 01:07:54

But it's a good it's a very good attempt for sure. What else could you say? Let's use the verses of the Quran. Because the Quran does this, as we said, okay, it does it quite regularly. And it does it to disprove polytheism in two distinct verses.

01:07:55--> 01:07:58

Okay, maybe more, but two that I can think of in my mind.

01:08:02--> 01:08:07

Let's recap just for one second, right. We said a contradiction in propositional terms is what?

01:08:10--> 01:08:17

to conflict with two declarative declarative statements, okay. So, how would you put that symbolically like

01:08:18--> 01:08:26

P and not P and not P is a conjunction of of the affirmation and the and its negation together in the sentence a compound

01:08:27--> 01:08:30

Okay, no problem. So, now we want to show

01:08:31--> 01:08:32


01:08:33--> 01:08:35

the opposite of what we want to affirm is true.

01:08:38--> 01:08:40

So in other words, what do we want to argue?

01:08:41--> 01:08:42


01:08:44--> 01:08:47

we want to disprove qualities. What does the Quran say about

01:08:48--> 01:08:48


01:08:50--> 01:08:54

Different Gods different wills? Competing? Competing, okay how

01:08:56--> 01:08:57


01:08:58--> 01:09:09

okay the is the following. Yeah. It's Locanda FEMA, Allah to Allah, Allah, la festa data. If they had been in them, the heavens in the earth, more than one God,

01:09:10--> 01:09:13

then it would have been corrupt the universe would have been destroyed.

01:09:16--> 01:09:21

Now consider the following. Why is that the case? Because if you have more than one ultimate will.

01:09:24--> 01:09:26

What are the alternatives? Let's think about

01:09:27--> 01:09:28

let's use the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

01:09:30--> 01:09:33

The father is all powerful, the sun is all powerful, no Holy Spirit is all powerful.

01:09:35--> 01:09:39

Can the father do something without the permission of the sun? Like for example, this is

01:09:41--> 01:09:46

right. Can the father read is read and the Holy Spirit wants it green and the other one wants it? Why?

01:09:48--> 01:09:52

Now if you say no, you cannot do this. And when you say cannot meaning impossibility,

01:09:54--> 01:09:59

which means the will of one ultimately cause something which would otherwise be possible to be impossible.

01:10:00--> 01:10:02

In relation to the other person of the Trinity,

01:10:04--> 01:10:30

which means there's been a supervision on one wheel on the other wheel, whether one wants it or not. Someone could argue, well, the wheels will always unite. That's not my question. My question is distinctly about possibility, is it possible that the one will, can be different to another will? If you say it's impossible, then possibility has been defined as a result of the combination of three worlds. That's a correct argument. And is the best argument one can think of

01:10:32--> 01:10:36

as a reductive argument, or in discrete mathematics, proof by contradiction?

01:10:38--> 01:10:53

Can you see this thing? Like, for example, my other law firm in Wellington, almost no matter how many left in the leather buckle Lululemon, bahala cola Alibaba malaba. Allah did not take any sun. Nor did he have any creative with him. If this is very powerful.

01:10:55--> 01:10:56

It's conditional if,

01:10:57--> 01:10:59

or is,

01:11:00--> 01:11:08

Danny, even in this situation, if, like hypothetically, isn't if this if we can see if we can concede to the point

01:11:09--> 01:11:16

that have a kulula Haluk. Each Ultimate Creator would have taken what they ultimately created.

01:11:17--> 01:11:22

And they would have outstripped one another for power, which means there's two attributes being highlighted here.

01:11:23--> 01:11:48

creative capacity and power. And what we're saying here is you cannot have more than one Ultimate Creator. Because if you have if the father is all powerful, and they say that the Father is the creator, the Ultimate Creator, the Son is the ultimate, the creator and the Holy Spirit is Ultimate Creator. Is it possible for one of them to be the Ultimate Creator without the supervision of one of the creative capacities on the other? If you say it's impossible, then one of the wills or one of the creative

01:11:50--> 01:11:55

essences or personas has supervene on the other.

01:11:56--> 01:12:04

So it's creating impossibilities for others. Only the Father is creating an impossibility for the sun. And the sun is creating an impossibility for the Holy Spirit.

01:12:05--> 01:12:21

And the same thing applies with power. Can they be more than one all powerful? What if you say no, because impossible, then the father has created impossibility for the sun. And the sun is creating possibility for the Holy Spirit. That's in effect, we're saying let's grant you a premise. Let's go with it. These are Quranic arguments

01:12:26--> 01:12:40

and as for the arguments for God's existence, you know, all of them go back to one A and the Quran wishes and political motivation and all Harlequin all of them goes back to Everything goes like that. I can guarantee you well, they're created from nothing, the impossibility of coming from nothing.

01:12:42--> 01:12:48

It's kind of like what you were saying. Yeah, from absolute nothing. And actually a good translation will be by nothing

01:12:49--> 01:13:02

from nothing Allah, but by nothing. I'm holy comin lady Shane, I'm home alcoholic will Oh, they were they the creators of themselves, is showing you it's impossible, this is impossible. And this is impossible.

01:13:04--> 01:13:13

Which is I was reading to you guys, but I really hear what liveness said, very powerful. And obviously he believes in the principle of sufficient reason.

01:13:14--> 01:13:22

And he he mentioned this in his book monad ology and the ultimate origination of things. The ultimate origination of the is the name of his book.

01:13:23--> 01:13:29

And this is a taken from a secondary source material from Stanford. He says, and beautiful, beautiful.

01:13:30--> 01:13:36

I like the way he does this. Some will consider it to be blasphemous, but I like the way he does. Suppose that God does not exist.

01:13:37--> 01:13:41

Because if this is blasphemous, so saying that two gods exist and then let's see what happens.

01:13:43--> 01:14:01

Yanni there's nothing there's no if Allah says a Quran, Locanda fie him, Allah, Allah, Allah, it's an impossibility. But he still mentioned. Ha, he still mentioned if there was more than one God, Danny, this was what it was. This is the result. Godfrey Godfrey liveness is using

01:14:02--> 01:14:03

the same kind of

01:14:04--> 01:14:09

argument, which is argumentum ad absurdum says let's assume that the atheist position is true.

01:14:11--> 01:14:25

Suppose God does not exist. I like it. Very good to see you catch the attention of the atheist straightaway let's see, okay, no problem. Guys come into my way. Okay, let's see, I can enjoy myself and go to the pub, I can masturbate myself on PornHub I can do this I can whatever I'd like to do my life.

01:14:27--> 01:14:32

I don't have to think about that. Whatever he does for his living pot noodles and all this, we can

01:14:37--> 01:14:44

suppose that God does not exist. If God does not exist, then the only things that exist are contingent beings.

01:14:46--> 01:14:59

With the entire series of contingent things have an explanation. The explanation of the entire series cannot be a member of the series since then, it would explain itself and no contingent thing is self explanatory. It's

01:15:00--> 01:15:11

They look exactly effectively have been seen as any argument, probably taking it from them somehow say, look, is this thing? Is it contingent? Or is it necessary? If it's contingent and you only have contingent things?

01:15:12--> 01:15:25

Then what's the explanation? Because rubber he believes, really and truly he believes an explanation is of course, yeah, he told me his thing is, of course best argument, although he does believe in a kind of occasional ism, by the way, but let's just for the sake of argument,

01:15:28--> 01:15:30

and the word explanation and cause are inextricably linked,

01:15:31--> 01:15:41

if you look at how they're defined, but let's just say for the sake of argument, he's effectively making the same the following argument, any you cannot have a world with just things which are caused,

01:15:42--> 01:15:48

because if you have a world of just things that are caused, then you cannot explain such a world.

01:15:50--> 01:15:57

Because you the explanatory Buck must stop unnecessarily being the explanatory, Bach must stop at something which has no explanation.

01:15:59--> 01:16:02

So he continues, I will read that without what you said.

01:16:06--> 01:16:16

But the explanation cannot be outside the series, because we have assumed that there is no non contingent being ie God. Thus, if God did not exist, there would be something unexplained the series of contingent things.

01:16:18--> 01:16:32

Everything has an explanation, okay, this is a very wide version of the PSR. Because there are different versions, as you know, he says everything has definition, even he doesn't believe every single thing has an explanation. Every single thing two plus two equals four

01:16:34--> 01:16:45

isn't necessarily fact, it doesn't have an explanation outside of itself. Someone could argue and this is we've kind of been through this. But just to remind you, what's the difference between the third fact and necessarily being Do you remember the answer for that?

01:16:46--> 01:17:10

Now, this reflects on the in the category of facts and beings, or necessary existence in the category of existence is only one lesser existence, because in the category of existence, you're gonna say, anyway, we don't have a problem with necessarily facts. So facts are no problem for us. It's only in the category of existence. What has a substrate or has a subject, just call it? This thing exists, has ontological, actual ontological status?

01:17:12--> 01:17:12


01:17:13--> 01:17:14

Therefore, he says,

01:17:15--> 01:17:22

Therefore God exists alone. Notice the similarity of the yawning he's mentioned. He's comparing him with,

01:17:24--> 01:17:26

with Spinoza, Spinoza has different idea completely. He's,

01:17:27--> 01:17:33

I mean, I wouldn't even entertain Spinoza as God down in the Hebrews. But for the sake of argument,

01:17:34--> 01:17:53

the best arguments for God's existence, entertain the opposing, in my opinion, they have entertaining, or the best arguments against to entertain the opposing framework, this proof by contradiction is one of the most powerful weapons for the Muslim in an intellectual setting, there's no doubt about that.

01:17:54--> 01:17:58

So what we are able to cover today is the following. We have covered the definition of contradiction.

01:17:59--> 01:18:06

And in fact, we have covered more than one definition, just to summarize, what was who remembers Aristotle's definition of contradiction?

01:18:09--> 01:18:10

Same thing.

01:18:12--> 01:18:17

Are you reading it word for word, or? No, I'm paraphrasing it because I don't remember what the word

01:18:19--> 01:18:32

what word for word if it is impossible, that the same thing can at the same time both belonged and not belong to the subject in the same respect? What is the word and the same respect? This is a very important thing. And then we talked about the eight conditions, who remembers their conditions?

01:18:35--> 01:19:02

You know, the eight conditions. Just go through them. Yeah. Gone. From an article, whatever you like, so long as you have translation. Yeah. So do the subject matter has to be the same model, the predicate or the Hubber. needs to be considered. makan was a man the place and time? So if it's different than Is there a contradiction? No. Where is the same is the contradiction? Yes. Yeah. Could be could be with other conditions. Okay. Yeah.

01:19:03--> 01:19:17

It offer considering the relationship between, you know, the subject matter, and I guess the other relationships are like father to son or son, the father is not contradiction. If there's a relation, no difference.

01:19:19--> 01:19:51

Then we looked at Bill Cova. And Bill feared, so looking at the potential capability versus the actuality. So it's possible for two things to but it's possible was for someone to have the potential capability to act upon it. Then we looked at the final one, which was the conditionality. So acknowledging it as a condition that's been placed on a subject matter that we need to also consider that if we're looking at if we're going to assume that that could lead to a contradiction. Yeah. So if you cannot put one condition is opposite. Yeah.

01:19:52--> 01:19:55

Basically, but the main thing is conflict.

01:19:56--> 01:20:00

SL bully jab, F affirmation and negation. The

01:20:00--> 01:20:11

Main thing is P and not P is that most Jama men, I think you're going to hear the most comprehensive thing, which is that you have a conjunction of things as you cannot have is affirmation and its negation at the same time.

01:20:12--> 01:20:20

You know, and as we said consistency would dictate that there's no interpretation in which that can be the case.

01:20:21--> 01:20:29

And with that, we will conclude and I hope you are enjoying this as much as we are sharpening our tools sharpening our saw

01:20:31--> 01:20:40

getting ready for the intellectual battle, actually continue it. Because now, you know, I think we are a force to be reckoned with

01:20:41--> 01:20:44

or as we said, the modus ponens way.

01:20:45--> 01:20:59

If p, if you are a member of the Sapiens Institute, then you are forced to be reckoned with, hopefully now you're a member of the Sapiens Institute. Therefore, you will be a force to be reckoned with as Salaam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh