Channel: Mohammed Hijab
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
So basically, I think maybe my colleague is used to debating perhaps some certain Christians and what have you. I like to think that perhaps we're a slightly different breed in terms of our approach with logical approach. I don't think he dressed actually what I said. And I think straw man, my argument, for example, I'll give you example. So I never said, everything that begins to exist has a cause I never use that. Because you can always say, Well, how do you know everything does begin to exist? And that would require empirical verification, which is why I never that's why I never said it in the first place. I mean, he posited that ultimately, and I don't know where the
where this ultimately is, I just said, ultimately, there will be a cause I don't know how old the universe is, may be, we've been through a couple of, you know, six or seven big bangs and big crunches until getting to this point, of course, universe is everything that exists. I merely said that at some point, it has to start somewhere because an infinite regress would mean there would be no change, no creation, nothing. And the same for things like what matters composed of I never made an assumption that it is quantum vacuum energy or Superstrings, which a lot a lot of scientists now doubt the idea superstring theory bit fantastical, but but I just posit those those two, like say
whatever you want, the question will can always be asked, what are they made out of? What are they made out of? If they attributes? Or come from what's something that they're made out of? For example, then what can you What can they made out of until you get to the point where there must be something that's fundamental, a fundamental substratum that supports all realities existence, that and if it's fundamental, and it's necessary, then it wouldn't be limited, and it would be self sufficient because it wouldn't require anything prior to it or underneath it or further, more fundamental than itself. So this is the kind of the arguments I made. But I guess, just to kind of
reframe this discussion in terms of what I mean by atheism, and why I mentioned the term atheism.
You're right, atheism isn't a belief. But I posited that it carries a necessary corollary, something attached to it, which is if you don't believe in God's existence, not that you may be just, it's just your default. No, if you don't believe in God's existence, that means that your worldview does not require you to posit God to explain things. And I'm really positive that reality imposes certain problems, if you want to keep going out that discussion, because ultimately, you can't explain cause matter specificity, limited finite things. And my explanation isn't one where I've noticed I know stuff, because I've observed it is that God is the only explanation to avoid self contradictions.
And that's pretty much it like, like I'm saying, if we take two, when we add two, I know that this will equal four, because taking the premises, the conclusion must follow. So likewise, I know that the premises are the existence of finite things. That's the premises. So I know that eventually, at some point, it must follow that there must be a beginning point, a creating point, a start point, and a fundamental substratum net supporting all things, even though I don't know where that is, where the boundary of that is. That's my argument, you could you put that into deductive form into deductive form. So two plus two equals four is a deductive form. It's a premise and a conclusion.
It's not productive form to say there is matter and matter must have a beginning. what's the what's the deductive argument that? Well, for example? Well, it's the avoidance of contradiction, because, explain so if I was to say two plus two equals six, right, I'm six, meaning what we what we conventionally understand six to be, we'd know that was wrong, because of contradiction. So my point was that if you were to say, Well, before us, before this point in time, there was an infinite number of movements or movements, I would say, we would never reach this point in time, because it would be a contradiction. It's one of the longest questions have been asked the
I think, you know what I'm saying, you're trying to say you want us to say everything that begins to exist as a cool, no, that's not necessarily the column. That's not what I'm going. What I'm saying is that if you the reason why you can say that two plus two equals six is false is because you're right, at least with logical contradiction. The reason for that is because it's essentially
a logically valid argument with premises and conclusions. And you can identify exactly how it contradicts you can put it into a truth table and show that.
what precisely is a tautology? And you and you can prove that deductively. But there's no. Can you highlight precisely what the premises are? And the conclusions are of your argument here?
Because it does, if you're going to say that it leads to contradictions, if you don't agree with it? Well, it does, because an infinite regress, is basically saying that there was no beginning and yet we're explaining or there was no cause and we're explaining the cause of things or explaining the beginning of things or explaining movements. So there was no first movement, but there is movement. So it can it creates a contradiction in terms because in essence, we rely on a pre existing
State or pre existing conditions of movement? And yet ultimately there is no there isn't, you're saying there is no beginning to this pre existing thing. There's just eternal, an eternal chain that there is no stop. It's the same as saying nothing. Actually, I'm trying to prove that we regret. So I've got one statement that can kind of summarize it for you. Anything susceptible to additional subtraction cannot be infinite.
Okay. Okay. So that's, it doesn't need to be a reductive three stage deduction that that makes it right. So I'm just giving one statement. He, what he's saying is that if you have an infinite thing, and you add to it, then there's the absurdity of adding to an infinite physical, quantitative thing. So you'd have to disprove that statement. Now we've made the statement, anything susceptible to addition or subtraction cannot be right, cannot be infinite. So in order for you to, to prove your infinite regress, if you wanted to prove it, you have to prove or you have to show how it's demonstrably possible for something to have infinity as as equality, as well as addition and
subtraction. There is no idea. So then you can't really make anything I don't know. But I'm not making a claim. That's the thing. So then why why we're having this discussion, because opposing your claim, well, you can't oppose your claim, is it your claim is that it requires it and I'm just asking you why that's I'm saying anything that is logical form, the the the idea that it is logically necessary to have causation or that there
can't be an infinite regress? No, I'm just saying what I've said this, we just have a final statement from you. Yeah.
The same alignment, anything susceptible to addition or subtraction cannot be quantified quantitatively infinite? Yes, you have to you if you're rejecting that, you have to disprove that how is it physically, mathematically or otherwise? How is it possible to have a quantifiable infinite, which is susceptible to additional subtract? That's all you have to do? It's another issue of burden proof. It's not on me to prove that I've just made the claim is true. And you fail to do so. If you allow me to answer the question that the answer is leave it after this one. Yeah. Yeah. The, the answer is
that you're right. Like these things are required. Okay. According to the laws of logic and physics that are predicated on the existence of the universe, and we're talking about the universe. Why is it predicated on the existence of universe? Because Can you prove it? Well, no. Okay. So are you trying to claim it's a possibility, right, nothing is an active claim, which and it's not possible, it's possibly
if it's possibly true, no, it's not possible. True? Was it not possible, because if the universe is a possible existence, then it cannot explain the existence of other possible existences if if there is a necessary
journalisten that yes, I'm asking because you were saying, if there was nothing you can do just that first, if this was if there was a necessary being or occurrence, and and that entails and just what you admit, and that and, and that entails yet another occurrence? No, it doesn't entail and if it does,
I think the confusion is, firstly, I don't think all things require putting into a logical syllogisms. Yes, it's necessary. I'm saying that I'm saying no, no, it does. When you're making contrary propositions you don't it doesn't a sentence could say that this sentence is false. It creates a contradiction within the sentence without it being a logical syllogism.
Merely, I'm merely pointing out that there are ultimately only two possibilities to to basically anything that you might observe, which is finite limited, or what have you, which is either it was it was the result of something more fundamental than it or something that that is prior to it.
And if you ask well, what was prior to any anything, what is more fundamental to anything, either it's something that's like itself as in like, finite, limited as well, or something, not the case, not finite and not limited. So I'm saying if we go down the pathway of just constantly insisting on there's a continuous chain prior to this existence of finite limited things, nothing would exist, because that would cause an infinite regress fallacy, and thereby, the contradiction is manifest, as opposed to ultimately at some point saying, Well, actually, you know what, at some point, I don't know where, but at some point, there was a beginning of there was something that was not finite,
whereby it doesn't have limitations. And just to kind of justify to you, the limitations requires explanation. Something doesn't have limitations, doesn't require explanation, but there's no limits for it to be there's nothing to create its limits for it to be explained by something else as explanation. Let's
jump in Yeah, I want to make a very simple observation, that if you say God created all the next obvious question, of course, is who created God?
And he has given a very satisfactory, please let me finish. Let me finish.
And the second one is, as I say, You are talking the language of certainty. What we have learned in the course of my lifetime, is that the origins of the universe have been pushed further and further back in time. It's a fascinating study. I don't pretend to understand
More than the average man was read about it. But to say that we clearly understand the nature of creation seems to me extremely arrogant. And to pretend that you can speak with certainty about something like that, I think is put it mildly not justified? Well, I think it's a little arrogant to actually dismiss what we actually said, because we never actually claimed that we know every tiny particle in this universe or how big it is or where it began, we never actually said that. So he did.
I just say that you're just saying that shows that you weren't listening to what we were saying. And some people might say that's arrogant to what I'm saying is very simply this creation or causation or whatever you want to call it, is to limit something to defies limitation that when you draw a circle, you're drawing a limitation. So limitations require explanation, but if something has no limitation, then there's nothing that requires it to be determined cuz it has no, there's no, there's no boundaries that exist, it is it is fundamentally unlimited.
Necessary being and say it doesn't require any. I didn't say necessary, I said, but that's the opposite of limited. No, because limitations require explanation, right? Not not lack thereof, and limitation, as opposed to what was the whole issue not not being limited? And what is what is something that's not limited? Well, it's necessary, because if it's not necessary, then it's limited. What's your definition of necessary because you keep using it incorrectly? What was your understanding? When I say resistance? Well, you're talking about contingent things. It's the it's the opposite of that something can you give us something that cannot happen differently? They cannot
work outside of itself? Well, I suppose. Okay, so can you can you can you tell us how there can be a world with no necessary existence? Well, who says Well, he said, We're living in a world of possible or you said that we have to claim that we're living in a world of possibilities and do you agree that there could be an explain that Do you accept that there is an unnecessary existence?
I would say that
yes. Then that's God that doesn't have to
do that does not have to be God.
Understanding of God It does not have to be there for us unnecessary existence is something which is this is the perfect couldn't be any other way explains everything else. That's our definition of explains everything else because without because necessarily couldn't be any other way. All contingent in any other way.
Alex, all contingent things depend upon it. Yes. Give me an example contingent thing. And if this cup, how is it contingent because it could have otherwise not been in existence, you know, speaking to a determinist fun. Do you notice? Yeah. Okay. So what is determinism? So if if you said your your thing? Sorry? The terminal? Yeah. Yes. Let me ask you a question later, but it will make sense. If P entails Q is necessary, yes, is necessary. No, it's not no.
No, no, it's not. It doesn't have to be if necessary. Let me explain why. What we're doing here is we've said that these dependent contingent things as you're defining them, Do you accept that this cup could have otherwise not been in existence? No. So okay, this determinism, to believe in determinism? Yes. And you said in your you said in your speech in your thing, a universe from nothing, you said that determinism comes from the necessary existence?
Yes, 14 minutes in, you said that one necessarily leads from the other. In other words, determinism leads from necessary existence, yes or no?
You said, you said determinism leads from necessary existence. Okay. I think we were talking about a different thing. Well, no, no, no, you said this, and I can show 48 minutes. And I said, that sounds.
So you know, you said the university
was going exercise. It's not anything different by no problem. But you said this, you said and you said, you said determinism comes from the necessary existence. What did I mean by that? I mean, I had to
listen to this two days ago, the guy asked you is the universe would you agree with Bertrand Russell, that the universe just is Yeah. And you replied and said yeah, the fact that universe necessary existence? The I would agree with that in the first instance. And then he said, how would that tie in with determinism? You then said, determinism follows from is that which follows determinism follows from the necessary existence? Right, which I remember I was taught, so I was I was the person I was debating with a guy called Cameron Bertuzzi. Yeah, making the case he was making the case with the contingency argument, saying that there are contingent things in the
universe, and therefore he was using that to reason that there's a God and I said that if that were the case, yes, that necessary existence to continue. Yes, determinism would follow from that I was making my case. Okay. So I did agree that it does exist. And Alex, I didn't say that. We agree with you on that point. So this is the thing you agree with us on more points than you think you agree with us on? You believe in unnecessary existence, which explains everything else. Necessary existence. Be Be careful, as you said and necessary existence. Are you retracting it? I said that the you're structuring the universe, that there's not one unified
Sorry. You said the universe wasn't necessary.
The universe follows a necessary causal chain. Okay, so they said, Is there no, you said, Hold on, you said the universe isn't necessary existence. And then you said determinism follows from that. Now I'm saying that if I said that, and I meant what you think I meant by saying, Yes, I retract it, but but I don't think that's what
you were very good at making arguments against things I used to believe in. Oh,
because Okay, now is perfect.
It's important, guys, because if you feel changing, you're
the only reason why you've changed your argument. After that I was wanted, so they created God.
Yeah, well, we have to actually ask the question, why does anything need creation in the first place? Right, it's a more fundamental question. Yeah. So I mean, I could take this club, but I usually sometimes I just take a stone or something. And I say, How do you know that this actually thing was created or require it to be required creation. So if this thing was, let's say, eternal, or let's say uncreated, then why is it in this particular shape, form, and so on and so forth, that it didn't choose? if something was uncreated, and nothing determined its limitations, then it wouldn't have limitations, which is my point. So therefore, it's kind of ridiculous to argue that
God requires creation when he has no limits that require defined by anything to be defined by or determined by something else. And that's why we know that anything is created, it's only because it has limitations. How long do you think God's been around for? eternity? Well, okay, what I'll say is that, that God is outside of time. So there's no, there's no pre existent time before him. Right. He's the beginning. But But I know what you want to kind of just,
you mentioned, you mentioned in your presentation, I just want to just briefly touch on it before we touch anything else, which is, you said that Islam is terrified of, of a people professing atheism? Right. Again, I think that's I don't know what experience you've had maybe with from reading European history books. But I suppose you should read books from about Mesopotamia and civilization experience the Prophet Muhammad.
If I may just finish I'll let you respond. So the Prophet Mohammed had a famous debate with a Bedouin atheist, right. There was no intolerance there. But but but he when he became Muslim, but there was no intolerance just because the guy initially profess to be atheist, Abu hanifa, famous classical scholar. In medieval Iraq, Baghdad actually had public open air debates with atheists. Presumably, there's atheists were living in Baghdad all the time to actually invite open air debates, and no one killed them or was intolerant to them at all whatsoever.
And when you say, oh, Islam is terrified of atheists, I just want to say something. You're not special. We encounter polytheists, we encounter Christian to trinitarians. We encounter Zoroastrians for our history. And from our perspective, you're all doing exactly the same thing, which is somehow the the finite thing is also infinite, eternal. And we don't really, we don't really see you as different actually, you're just just another.
Yeah, just not a flavor of ice cream that we are basically encountering. So I don't don't make yourself out to be more special than you are, from our perspective. And as for the issue of tolerance of atheist, I think you should question your founders of the very ideology which pervades the western liberalism, john Locke, in his letter on toleration, argue that you should tolerate different Christian sects, Protestants that necessarily, but not atheists, because you can't trust what they say they don't they don't believe in any higher moral value other than merely what is expedient, Rousseau made also the same argument. And some people say that under the current you
could say, atheistic idea, as opposed to the natural rights arguments of john Locke, but depends on my arguments of utilitarianism. Really, morality is only based on expediency. And then people's rights are based on whether it's expedient to the state to even tolerate your rights so that it's not related to the bait itself, but the guy brought it up, and it's really disingenuous to bring up in that kind of debate. Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, I mean, are you suggesting that someone like Socrates was deeply immoral man?
No, I'm not saying it. I'm saying you seem to be implying No, no, john Locke said that you that you can't cross a theist
by default the difference is that the things the things which are worldview are based upon which are the philosophies of these men, we can say that those areas of their philosophies were wrong. JOHN Locke said some pretty egregious things. How can you say anything the difference is we'll get to that the difference is
don't believe the difference is the difference is that you can't do the same thing. When there is something immoral even when there is something immoral in the basis it when there is something immoral, that comes from somebody who founded the worldview that we believe in and something else unrelated, Lee that he said that no longer applies was wrong. Can you prove it and we can say
That we disagree with you. On your world we have to we can say that we disagree. What do you have to say? So can you repeat the same thing you're making? immoralities in the Quran, you can't make the same look, we have just allowed you to speak and there were many times I could have interjected and ask you similar questions and you're making it to quote way fallacy and is smart enough to know it. You can't just turn around as a question for being a moral nihilist. Especially since I'm not one anymore. Oh, you've changed your mind as much as well. What what statement, the ones that you said you're a moral nihilist. What do you think moral subjectivism meant to me and means to me? What do
You're saying you can't say this? Because you're a moral subjectivist? In a moral Yeah, you're making a moral claim?
What is mortal subject? Yeah. So you don't have objective morality? It's not it's not fixed. It's not true or false, despite human thoughts or convictions that morality is is true. So it's only
a single answer to that. Yeah. My question is that I asked one question, then you can answer. My question is he's made it very clear on his public profile that this man is does not believe in objective morality. Why and how can you say this in one breath, and then starting passing moral judgments which are based on liberalism? Can you explain how atheism accounts for that? Or how it does? As I say, that's a palace? It's not a super precise It is, it is it is to you as well. It's simply saying, well, you do this too. So who you to speak that's not doing it? We are working on it your worldview. Your worldview claims that morality is objective, and your worldview has objective
moral statements, like the ones I've highlighted, it's your job to prove that those can be coherent with objective morality. God is all knowing God. So that's why we believe anything. God says, Oh, no, God says more. Yes. Okay. Repeat that, please. I don't need to
do it. That's why I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to talk to the audience. And if the moral precepts within Islam that they disagree with, they have to disagree with if you haven't, you have said said, If God says something is moral than it is morals, that's what I say. Yeah. And so if the people here this evening, disagree with the moral precepts,
as well. So let's talk about that. Let's see.
If I heard you correctly, anything that God says more? Absolutely. How do you know what God said? Well, okay, go back to our argument. I said, that we said that, we have revelations of full time the final revelation is the Quran as a falsifiability test. I gave you four things preservation in imitability contradictions, and also taught you about predictions of the Quran and Sunnah. Now, in order for you to say that the Quran is false, you have to falsify it, like a scientist would have to falsify a theory for in order for them to say that that is wrong. Now, if you can't produce any evidence for that, then really you can remain agnostic on the show. How do you? How do you know that
the words contained in the Quran? were the words that we're actually supposed to have been spoken to the hammered by the angel Gabriel, supposing that in the modern world, believe it? Yes. Okay. So, first and foremost, with regards to morality, it's actually completely irrelevant in this debate concerning when we're discussing the explanation of reality. If you don't believe in objective morality, then there's nothing to compare the morality of Islam with right to say that discordant with it. Yes. Right. So I think it's a massive red herring. And I think I think that friend of yours will talk about a few fallacies concerning bringing up in the first place, you have to first present
to us objective, where is the majority and then compare it to Islamic morality? And there's they don't they don't fit. You can't. And that's my point. And also the fact that you say, Well, if we don't like some morality in the back in the past, or some basis of or justify it in the past, we can change it. But that's what's scary, because in modern Was it 21st century Europe and on 20th century Europe Need I say more? People thought that morality of people's protections of rights and things were no longer convenient for the nation that the nation's security and then they prejudicially persecute certain minorities, because it was no longer beneficial from their estimation, and there's
no objective basis to argue against, then you say, Well, I personally don't make or find it. distasteful. He did. So that that is actually scary that you don't have objective morality, because there's no actual promise of, of rights that you can actually underwrite. As for the Well, no. Well, yes, that I mean, they're all asking a question or you just
the subjectivity of morality doesn't lie at the level of the act itself. It lies at the level of the motivations. I can say to somebody like we I am a psychological headedness in the same way that mill was. I can say it is I know what people's motivations are, ultimately speaking and I and there are objective facts to be known about how to achieve a goal. So it's not a case most objective is Mills Mills assume all objectivism is more moral. I said, I'm a psychological utilitarian. Rotarian like john Stuart Mill, not just a utilitarian Okay, well, I hope the audience can notice the difference in the level of interjection here. Like I'm trying to really listen to what you have to say, but
you've got to let me respond. Okay, good.
Psychological utilitarianism means that we can know what people's motivations are, and I think we can there are objective things to be known about how to achieve those goals. If somebody thinks that something's right
I think it's wrong. It's not a case of Throw your hands up in the air and say it's everybody's opinion that's not what moral subjectivism is. That's confusing moral subjectivism with moral relativism. That's not what we're doing. No, no, hold on. Those are not the same can respond. Alright, so a mill in chapter four of his book on utilitarianism, he actually gave us an exact way of identifying what he called the principle of utility. Yes. And through that he talks about desirability and how when you see that something is desirable for someone, then that is that is an evidence that it's something which ought to be done. Okay.
But hold on, you can check. I've just given you a reference,
rejecting the level of introduction, the title, the title, I didn't say the audience connection, I'm not interjecting I said, notice the disparity in
the introduction here is that the title
the title of that chapter, there was a, there was a reason why the title of that chapter is not the truth of utilitarianism. It is located it is not. It's like the title of his book. The title of that chapter is the kinds of proofs to which utilitarianism is susceptible to hold on the title of the chapter is proof of utilitarian it's not, you can check it now. It is the types of proof that utilitarianism susceptible to john Stuart Mill wrote the book himself, you can get a copy from Waterstones Now, everyone in the audience can google it? Yes. It's actually the title is proof of utility. That's what people call it. That's not what mill wrote. No, who calls it the title mill
mill. The mill. mill doesn't call it the proof of utilitarian that's what its title, he avoids it, he does.
Not the name of the chapter. Get up if you'd like to. Okay. So
it's important, why it's important. The reason, by the way,
sort of descending into chaos. We want to get out.
Okay, so just to continue, I said,
zero is not. Okay. I'll concede that point. If he's right, I can see. I don't care if you're right or wrong about that is the thing that matters is the point that he was making. The point that he was making is that you can't prove utilitarianism, because he's a moral nihilist in that sense, but he said that there were certain proofs to which
you can sue because you can't prove the point the middle subject
is the visible thing, which you brought up is that the only evidence we have that something is visible, is that it can be seen. That's what he said, Now we can't prove
to understand more, okay, it's not one thing, it's an in depth
thing for someone who said that there are many things that you know, you don't know in the universe and things that you can't presume Yes, for you to claim that you now know people's motivations with the same kind of certainty enough to make it to derive some objective moral system? Yes, it's somewhat of a contradiction there. Because everyone's motivations might be unique or different, yes. unknowable to you anyway, certainly, we never understand the viewpoint of a psychopath who has the inability to empathize.
Yeah, but the study, of course, but to make a claim that's basically that you can understand everyone's motivations, or they have some kind of unique template of motivations that all human beings subscribed to, or can fit into, is really convicting what you said earlier, one thing that you don't actually know, you don't make claims to know things which you don't directly Oh, I make I make. I also didn't say
the last question I open up to audience I do I do make things.
I never said that. I didn't I also didn't say that I didn't make where do you see morality? Is it?
I also didn't say that you have to see things to be able to prove them. Oh, okay. So I think illusionary for you. I I would agree with that statement.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question of how you can possibly be sure that what are supposed to be the word spoken by God, or rather by the angel Gabriel pointed out to Mohammed are actually the words spoken if indeed, they were spoken at all.
Okay, so a couple days ago, I presented a lecture on how do you know Islam is true, when there's so many different, let's say, conflict, conflicting, or competing belief systems, in essence, from every aspect from the Islamic concept of God being a main issue, which is what my presentation was trying to focus on. The summit concept of God is almost completely unique to Islam with the possible perceptions of variations of Judaism and philosophers who've, you know, reflected upon the possibilities of what could exist and what create all existence, and they've all come to the same conclusion, just like good old Greek, Xenophon is that there must be an ultimate creator is
infinite. And he's unlike creative things. There's nothing there's a famous Greek philosopher who believed that if he rejected polytheism, and rejected idols that look like human beings saying if a cow had a god, it would make the the gods to look like cows.
So he didn't he wasn't atheist. He just rejected polytheism. And so we would basically, kind of side with that view. But it's not a very specific question. Yeah. About Yes. What what the angel Gabriel is supposed to have said to Mohammed, how can you possibly know how can anybody possibly know, that was actually what happened? How.
And let me just finish my point, which is, Islam is basically if you I, when I encountered it, I encountered it. And I took it as a hypothesis for how to explain reality, as one possible hypothesis. After looking at different belief systems, including, or like, they're often let's say, atheistic positions in belief system, naturalism or materialism, communism and such. And such, I basically, you know, found contradictions and things that didn't make sense. And he kind of almost had a process of elimination that Islam was the only one left that actually didn't suffer any tonal conditions, both compared to the observable reality as well as within itself. And that's very tough
thing to, it's a very tall order to actually achieve if you're not explaining everything, quite literally everything. So caveat, not the particularities of things like, you know, quarks and bosons in case you actually say, Oh, I don't you're claiming to explain everything? No. But what I'm what I noticed is that Islam was the only one left and then after further investigation, after I thought maybe it could have been a different way, maybe if one particular some induction deduction exists, or it was a different way. And I realized that that produces contradictions. So the point that I came to the conclusion that Islam was the only possible explanation to explain reality, which is why
I was very thrilled to do this debate in the first place. But
without without going to things like you know, held existence and all this other stuff. The main key selling points used to say of Islam have a hypothesis of Islam, excuse me, it was his concept of God, which is almost virtually unique to itself. And it's just rationally consistent and coherent. I didn't ask you about Islam, his concept of God, I asked you very specifically about how you can possibly know that the concept of God whatever it is, that emerges from the Quran, can have been dictated to hammered by the angel Gabriel, I take it therefore that you cannot answer that question. Well, it's kind of like the equivalent kind of challenge that you're sending out, we can discuss how
do we know the message, the messenger that related the message is how do we know from from analysis of data, it's accurate, but I want to just to kind of that's what I'd like to know. I know. I know. And I want to do a kind of a different angle to answer that question, which is, what got me into Islam in the first place was different that let me finish the what got me into Islam in the first place, wasn't me, looking at the claims or trying to go back in a time machine to find out if the problem existed, or the angel Gabriel came to him. I looked at the message itself. And the consistency of the message itself, with the universe I came gave me led me to a conclusion that they
both come from the same author, and that's why I became Muslim. In other words, you can't possibly know
we'll leave it to the audience.
audience questions happen to gentleman in the middle