Proving God is like Proving Gravity
Channel: Mohammed Hijab
File Size: 20.03MB
policy in and of itself
is not something which you can empirically see. You can't see it, or hear it or feel it or touch it. empiricism? No, no, I'll tell you. I mean,
you saw the effects of gravity, you didn't see gravity.
You see what I'm saying? So if I were to ask you, you believe in Gravity, but you don't. But you have no evidence directly of its existence, all you have is evidence of the effects of gravity. Gravity, if I said to you that gravity is actually an angel.
Wait a minute. What did you say that?
fossa to gravity is not actually gravity. Gravity is a range of angels, pulling down
objects on celestial bodies like Earth, or planets, planetary bodies, that's what gravity is all in the cosmos. So gravity is, in fact, angels. I'm not gonna call it gravity anymore. I'm gonna call it the angels that pull down objects on planets. I have as much of a truth claim a legitimate truth claim. As the scientist who's referring to gravity as gravity. The only difference is a semantical. difference. Yeah, but you're both. Well, both of us.
No, no, I'm not saying that.
No, no, no, look, we're not both. Yeah. Both of us. Let me tell you why we don't care. Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah.
I haven't said, by the way, that I believe in angels. But I'm just saying, you know, angels of gravity in Islam. I'm just saying that. I'm giving you just an example. Right? If I if I said if, and this is a conditional. But what I'm saying to you is,
for you to say is both from you can say he's both unfalsifiable. Yeah, unfalsifiable. Right. To take property and kind of logical understanding. Is those unfalsifiable. Just because something is unfalsifiable? It doesn't mean it's wrong.
Sure, but there's no way of knowing No, no. Science.
I'm not saying that.
And I'm not saying that I am not making it. I'm not making that point, bro. Muslim again.
I'm not saying it's wrong. What I'm saying is that I'm just making a move talking about God. Now, I don't want you to confuse the discussion. Now, we don't know whenever you see me just because I'm Muslim, it doesn't mean I'm always gonna be talking about God. I can have discussions and other things as well. Okay. I got
while I was while I was saying she was this, the point I was making to an overarching point was that just because something is given? A scientifically I think you'll agree with this, right? Just because something is given a scientific label. So I was given an example of gravity, gravity is a pulling force.
Okay, or pushing force or whatever you want to call it, depending on what theory to go with, right?
Now, here's the thing. The thing of gravity itself, we said, can't be empirically justified. The effects of gravity is obviously. So my point was that if I were, if I were to replace the word gravity, with Gremlins, or angels, or whatever, I'd have as much right to do that, from a philosophical perspective as the scientist has. Gravity
has the effect of gravity and just call it almost like, perfect.
Would you accept? Excellent, I would, I would say no problem. That's very nice.
But then you you've given us a nice premise to start off our discussion or theological discussion, because I know you wanted to talk about God let me know.
What's your name again? Jordan. Jordan, nice to meet you, man. Are you religious person or
more scientific? Okay. So as prophet you said that right. I'm happy you said this. Because you said that we can understand something through the effects.
You know, there's a beautiful interesting quote of the Arabs. One hour, man, he said Elvira to Catalina Island bias said that the
the entrails or the
you can say the entrails of the camel. is proof that the camel was there? Yes.
it's, uh, yeah.
So hey, the point is the effect of something gives us reason to believe of something. Gravity is a perfect example of that you've never seen gravity, you've never heard gravity. empirically, you can't substantiate gravity, you can only see the effects of gravity. And I'll say to you the same thing about the universe.
Now, you might have never seen
the cause of the universe. We've never seen the cause of the universe, but we've seen the effects of it. Now the point is, since we've seen the effects
software, can we apply the same logic to the universe that we've applied to gravity? Remember, when I asked you about gravity, the first thing you did was you grabbed your bottle and you dropped it to show me that, look, these are the effects of gravity. And I'm saying the same thing about the universe.
The effects of the universe,
or the results of the universe is that we have a finely tuned system. And by that, I mean, not an aesthetically pleasing, I'm talking about a universe which allows for any kind of life to exist.
That's a finely tuned universe with systems.
motions, consistency, consistencies, collinear.
synchronization, a life time, space, 3d, all of that. And at the same time, chaos and
is an is is another way of saying randomness. And randomness doesn't exist.
is a word human beings use to describe that which they don't understand.
So here, just because this is called the argument from ignorance, it's a very classical logical fallacy, just because you don't understand something, you don't understand the black hole, you don't understand the problem of evil, it doesn't mean that this result is that this thing is falsified?
No, that's the devil of the God of the gaps argument. But you can say the same thing of science, you have the science of the gaps. Yeah. So the point I'm making taking a step back here, the question is, we have the effect, which is the universe was the cause of this universe.
If we agree,
if we if we agree with a cause and effect premise, what's the cause the universe, different theories that come from lots of different ideas? So if we choose one of them that you're convinced
in this argument,
the Big Bang?
I mean, I will say I don't know what the cost of universities.
And I don't know if I can even comprehend it.
How do you know
that gravity is either pulling or pushing force? How do you know that? Because the two theories that we have really Newtonian slash Einsteinian
is either it's gonna be a pulling force or pushing force. I mean, that's the two options you have, it's not really that difficult. How do you know that gravity is either a pulling force or pushing forward, you know, they're
dependent on weather.
So if I have this thing here, if you have that it's going to go down, it's going to go from an elevated Ascension position to a descended position, or a declined position is not correct. And that
down, downward motion suggests either something is pushing or something is pulling, probably, isn't that right? I mean, I know physics is much more complicated. And I'm not a physicist.
It's logical, I would
say it's a relatively
no problem. I'm saying, how do we come to a conclusion that is either one of those two things.
But you're using a kind of reductionism, physics and logic are inextricably linked physics, because the language of physics is mathematics at the end of the day, geometry is part of maths. And logic is part of like, geometry is logical, right? So from that perspective, if we're talking about gravity, we're talking something pulling something pushing something compressing something like this right. Now, why did we come to that conclusion, we came to that conclusion, with a deduction, a kind of inference to the best explanation. We say, Okay, well, look, if it's coming down, either something is pushing it, or something is pulling it. Now, I want you to apply the same exact logic,
because you're 100% Sure. And I'm 100% sure that gravity exists. I'm not sure if you're 100%. Sure. You know, okay, maybe not yourself. But there is a force that's pulling or pushing or creating this kind of movement, okay? And that they call it in the, in the vernacular, the scientific vernacular gravity.
Let's apply the same logic to the universe.
So we have two different things.
Clearly the creation of the universe.
Oh, I can conclude that.
I'm not really trying to make analogies with it. I'm just trying to be great.
We make decisions on
a daily basis as to what is what? So in other words, why we believe in certain things?
No, but not just that, but we make deductions on inferences on a daily basis, right? physicists do the same things logicians do the same things that mathematicians do the same thing everyone does. Now, what I'm saying is that the same way as we've come to inferences about gravity, we can do the same thing about the universe. It's not that difficult, just because there is a narrative now. And I'm going to use the word bias, the post colonial narrative. Yeah. Wow.
Yeah, is a post colonial narrative.
is a Western that not my opinion, wants to know, as opposed to the lightened minority. Fair enough. Yeah. Which is, which is a postmodern narrative in many ways, as well, which is pushing us to believe in that atheism, is some kind of alternative. theistic explanation.
I'm not saying that
the universe, the way the
is created, all of a sudden,
they're looking at the relativity of stars to us, and the way in which they're moving away.
tracing it to a song, you know, like a course, or somewhere where?
the Big Bang, or saying that it started here, and then spread out.
They can just like, just like we've done, like you said, with the unit with a cup and when looking at
the effects of the unit.
What's happened, but the cause? We're back to square one.
Say, we, we think because of this evidence,
because of this data that we've collected, yes. The Universe was likely to start this long ago.
what my premises today? Yeah, sorry. That is a lot closer to anything.
creationist they're not a creationist, there is a hell of a lot more of an ideal than a gathering of data.
It's metaphysical isn't unreal, this is
something that's almost like a, like a myth. Okay, well, that's interesting. New, is a new atheist jargon, right? Which maybe you've been affected by because of primary or secondary socialization. No problem. But what I was gonna say to you is that, you
know, we'll come to that, but what I was gonna say was that, look, my premise today is that God is as provable as gravity. That's my premise, right? You've already proven that gravity is, yeah, no, what I'm saying to you is that we believe in Gravity, because we see the effects of gravity. We believe in God, because one of the reasons not the primary reason there are other reasons. But one of the reasons from not only a sense datum perspective, like influence, and using empiricism and cause and effect, but another perspective, which is a reductionist perspective, we can believe in God, as a result of the effects of God. Now, you don't need to use the word God, let's go into the
Yeah, well, I'm not well, let's not use the word God. And entity, right. And entity that created the universe is sustaining the universe, maintaining the universe, etc. Why don't we instead say,
universe, let's say, the universe?
now, what I'm saying is look kinds of things that the universe exhibits. So the universe exhibits older law. And oh, no, no, there really? Yeah. Because there are laws of physics.
And the law
gravity, like we know there's a law of gravity.
gravitational constant says, there's lots of things right. One thing you're saying we don't know what gravity is not we do know that we know gravity have serious effects, right? When you're confident, and so as a physicist to say that gravity exists. Now, the reason why is because we see the effects. And what I'm saying is the same thing. Look at the things that a universe exhibits, universe exhibits, all the little universe exhibits sophistication complication. Now, the same thing I'll say to you, we've used the effects of something to kind of infer the course same thing we can say about the universe. The fact that there's a creation system
rusticated creation, or let's not use the word creation, let's use the word sophisticated entity, right? Yeah, we did jump. So I apologize that something was just sophisticated some entity in place. The fact that that exists, may suggest
may suggest, yeah, or should suggest, from an inference perspective that there was a cause, which caused that intervene. Now, why is that? Cause? That's when we start talking about the attributes of the course. Does it have intelligence? Does it have knowledge? Does it have the power into creative capacity to put the universe into being? Because of course,
because it causes the fine
because of causes defined as something which brings rise to phenomena?
Is it comprehendible? was the cause of the cause? That was that we're talking about the? Yes, you're saying intelligence, but we're using? Can you comprehend it?
Yeah, no. Can you comprehend it right now, if I sent you some intelligence?
About the cause of the universe? I don't know it. And I'm gladly admit that. I don't know. What I'm saying to you is, you know, you know, gravity through his effects. Why can't we use the same principle with the universe? Because the universe
compared gravity? Why? It's a part of the universe, we can use the analogy of gravity to look at, like, how we understand them things like read really like, like, a real scientific truth, or a law of nature. But
conclusion that we came to with gravity is there's something that we don't
we know, an effect on, we don't know that tall. So it's like a leap of faith to say, when we're looking at the universe, and there's a leap of faith to say that gravity exists is that it's the same, it's the same leap of faith when you say gravity exists, isn't it? Are you believing you? Have you ever doubted gravity? But I can say gravity exists? And also say, I don't understand? Yeah, no, that's no problem. Now, that's a fair point. But that is called the fallacy of incredulity. You say something is so amazing.
the fallacy of introducing a form of a logical fallacy, which is applicable in some cases, something that's so complicated that I just don't get it. But just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean it's not true. No, no, but we know denying robbing, and we just don't know how it works. Okay, but we don't know deny the existence of the universe.
We don't need to know the intricacies we know on a fundamental level.
I mentioned the tennis table cup. I know the intricacies of how it was made these plastic paper, etc. I know the intricacies so I can make a conclusion that was made like this.
I like this discussion. No, guys. I mean, I like it. Well, no, no, no, I'm happy with this. Now. I want to kind of I just want to just kind of
know, yeah, the intricacies of making a conclusion might be a leap of faith in the scientific world or religious? Yeah, for sure. I think that you're right. They're not unimportant details, for sure. And I think there's a lot of dispute. There's a lot of agreement here in what we're saying. And I think what we need to do, I want to just, I swear to God, I'm not doing this on purpose. We've had that discussion, cause and effect. I just want to say one more thing completely off topic.
Wait a minute, why am I changing topic? One more thing. If you want to say something before?
I don't mind. I just want to say one more thing. Okay. I want to ask you I want to throw out there man. I do. I want to really throw out there just one thing we talked about cause and effect, whatever. As long as you've heard my argument, you know it, I don't think I need to hear more. Or ask your question. And I'm going to do this with people like yourself, because I think it's really important now. So I'm gonna touch you guys actually. Alright, I'll ask you a question.
What's your purpose of life?
Now we've done it, we've done it, we've done this Alright, now we're gonna start regurgitating information or repeating ourselves. So that's done. Let people think about that. Second question. What's your purpose of life?
What is the purpose of life?
Would you be willing to tell us yours? First? Yeah, no problem. Do you know what I've been reading? Some?
Yes, of course.
Everything has its purpose of life.
Everything is very nice as a purpose, whose more complex
have a purpose.
What's the purpose
Everything you've learned as
a more complicated than a parent
it's good that you said objective.
But his question was a very legitimate one because he didn't ask about just your purpose. He said objective purpose is, is there a reason for us to be here in the world?
Yeah, what's the what's the real Why is the reason for human beings?
What do you think the answer is?
Because you could be a Jew or a Christian
you're not you're Muslim.
Okay, what do you think? That's good, okay.
But why and human beings here? What's that?