Ultra-Skeptic Atheist Caught Out
Channel: Mohammed Hijab
File Size: 19.33MB
Okay, our sponsors nature's blend producers of premium Ethiopian black seed products. If you put hijaab 10, you'll get 10% of your purchase,
check out their links underneath in the description box.
Or if there is one that is actually objective, which everyone should be fulfilling.
I don't see how it could be objective. This is not utopian. Not always it can actually it doesn't have to be utopian. So let me tell you something, I always give this example. All right. So I want to put it to you. Say for example, if when you go to sleep today, yes, we wake up, we find ourselves say on a plane.
Or let's say on a train, yeah.
And the people around us, they're talking to each other.
And they're eating food and they're having a good time.
What's the first thing you're gonna want to know? You went to sleep tonight, instead of waking up in your bed? You wake up on a train?
Yeah. So what are you gonna do people around you Ian's conversating? What do you want to know?
Well, the reason what the angry. Okay. So they've they've given you some of the foods right. So now, the train keeps going forward. Yeah. Remember, you went to sleep in your own bed tonight? Yeah. You woke up in the on the train? woke up on the train? Yeah. Good. All right. So that's the first question you're gonna have, right? How did I get here? And where is the train?
Wherever it is? Where's it going? Where is this train going? Yes, I can summon the train. Yes. So what am I doing with a train?
I do think these are legitimate questions. It's very legit. Why? Why? One? So at one time I was in my bed. Yeah, I'm on a train. I don't get there. So you'll be thrown into the reality of being on a train. After having not been there before, right. But the train in this analogy here is like life. Because we've we've thrown into the reality of life. Okay, after having not been here before. And we're going somewhere. We came from somewhere. And we're doing something here. Do you know I mean, one second one second. Yes. So it's okay. When I was a baby, we were so before.
What I'm saying is that we've been thrown into life. Yeah, there was a time where you and I did not exist. And then there was a time where we existed and we're aware of our own reality. Yes. So this is analogous to what I've just explained. Maybe not exactly though, it just brought us to some extent, as I was saying, it's a direct analogy a little bit cool. No, that's alright. Because you'll be one guy called Martin Heidegger. Right? He's a German philosopher. Yeah. He used this term, which is very interesting. It's called the thoroughness of life. He said that you've been thrown into life. You've been chucked into life. Yeah. Because there was a time where you were not here, or you
did not exist at one point. Now you exist. And you're in this world. And you can, you can put, you can conceive of that reality, you can realize your own existence, you see what I mean? I think there's a big gap.
In the analogy, there might be but the analogy is not going to be perfect. It's always gonna be for
you see the questions here, right. The question is, when you're on the train,
whether I come from, what am I doing here? or What am I going through existential questions, what Karl Popper called the ultimate questions? Yeah. So now the questions are still applicable, because now we've come from somewhere. Yes, we're doing something. We'll go in somewhere. Yeah. Okay. So where are we going to go with? Well, first of all, the first question is, where did we come from? That's an important one it is. So here's what I'll say to you. Look, you came from your parents. And they came from their parents, and so on and so forth. But it couldn't be an infinite regress of predecessors. Right. Yeah. So there had to be somewhere, we're all side in the same way. This
universe came from somewhere, there couldn't be an infinite regress of universes or causes, because then the universe wouldn't come into existence. Right, just like they couldn't be an infinite regress of predecessors. Otherwise, you wouldn't come into existence? One second. One second. Yes. Yes. infinite regress. To the universe. Yeah. So look, if we say that you came from your parents, oh, yeah. And then they came from their parents. What I'm saying to you is that there couldn't have been an infinite regress of predecessors is that your parents and parents and parents, otherwise, you wouldn't have never been existed, right? Because that's a place where it started, isn't it? In
the same way, there couldn't be an infinite regress of entities before the universe otherwise universe wouldn't have started in the same way.
Once again, is it the same analogy?
Is it this? Yeah. Are we just inferring that's how it happened that yes, it was one of the inference but the question is this is that you've got, you've got Sorry, sorry.
you've, you've got you've got options. You've got options in front of you. So you've got option one is that the universe came from nothing. Option two is that the universe created itself, or option three is that the universe came from somewhere right?
You have something? So we're saying, okay, option one is an impossibility, because the universe couldn't have come from nothing. Yes. Option two is also an impossibility. So sorry, say that again. So option one option one was that the universe came from nothing. Yeah, we're saying that it's impossible for something to come from nothing.
Yeah, tested all the possibilities that he could come from. Yeah. Because, by definition, nothing is the absence of something, right? So mathematically, even zero plus zero could never equal one. So from a mathematical perspective, from a logical perspective, from an empirical perspective, we have no evidence to show that something can come from nothing. That postulation is an absurd one, it's an impossible one.
So the first option, is that something that we came from the universe came from nothing. The second option is that the universe created itself.
To go back to the nothingness. Yes. Okay.
stance of the universe?
If there was nothing, yes.
No, that's what I'm saying. It's impossible.
It's impossible, because from all all the testing methods that we have, right, whoever is ontological testing methods, mathematical testing methods, empirical testing methods, in all of those paradigms, and all those fears, not zero plus zero always equals zero, there is no situation in which we have been able to perceive or test or validate, or prove that something has come from nothing. With our limited.
Yeah, but we have been, we have been able to show the opposite of it. Everything that we know about everything shows us that from nothing, nothing comes. So if we do we know everything, no says that we know everything. So that's a different thing. there be a
recognition that it could be, what I'm saying to you is that we don't know everything that is, but we can know some things which can never be Jonathan. So we might not be able to know everything that exists in the world. But we can eliminate things that could potentially exist. For example, if I say, look, a squared circle. That's a contradiction. It can't existence, right? Why do we know that it doesn't exist? Because there are two opposite things together, right, which cannot coexist. And at the same time, like, we found out that you could square a circle with this.
Because the thing is, is that how would you go about trying to find out, you'd have to reinvent the rules of logic, if you wanted to, to delete the law of non contradiction. And being productive? Yeah. If we could do that. But we The thing is, we can't do that. Can't move. It was Yeah, it will be a circular thing. Because if you try to disprove logic with logic, I mean, think about is the laws of logic. Yeah. The laws of logic that we know that, for example, laws of non contradiction, some of the laws of mathematics, somebody even some of the axioms,
short answer. No problem.
But can I can I finish off what I'm saying to you? Yeah. Just to finish off on a wrap up. Okay. How do you know that? Was your daughter on the other side of the phone? Say the name and the phone? Yeah. And are you? Are you convinced that that's your door?
How sorry about that?
And how did you know that that was definitely
couldn't have been someone that sounded like a doctor. Alright, so how would you? How are you aware? How are you sure that it is your door?
So you employed a probabilistic type of reasoning. You said, based on the variables that I have at hand, my daughter's voice, the fact that my daughter's name appeared on the screen with a number underneath that I'm pretty convinced. Would you say you're certain that was reasonable? It was reasonable to believe that was mortal? It was reasonable. Would you say you're happy to live your life knowing that that was your daughter on the other side of the phone? Yes. All right, you see your standards. And this is something I want to say about not yourself, but generally about atheism and agnosticism, skepticism, your standards for recognizing truth when it comes to daily
interactions and transactions. Yes, it's quite reasonable. I would say you're employing a probabilistic standard. Yeah. Now, I want you to employ such a reasonable standard when it comes to knowing where you came from, what you're doing and where you're going. because let me tell you something. If you employ a reasonable standard for those three questions, you will come to the conclusion that there had to be something with no beginning that started you, you'll come to the conclusion that you came from that thing with no beginning uncaused cause the necessary being existence, etc. Because it's impossible for that to be an infinite regress of causes. And it's
impossible for there to be an infinite regress of dependent things you will come to that conclude
I refute that. You're still skeptical. Yeah, I'm skeptical that that was your daughter on the other side of the phone? You can't? Because you don't know her. Yeah, well, you don't know. But here's the thing, here's what I'm saying to you is that you need to be as consistent with your standards of truth. With the ultimate questions in life, which determine what you're doing here, as you are in your daily transactions and dealing with, for example, getting a phone call from your door? I don't think so. Well, that's fine. You don't have to think so. But what I'm saying is, then that would mean that you're basically employing different standards for different truths. What cannot do that?
Well, look, here's ones that you can do that if you want no problem, but you're deceiving yourself. That is, in my opinion, this over skepticism when it comes to the ultimate questions, which you don't employ in other spheres, in my view, is indicative of inner psychological reasoning behind it. Maybe you want to be agnostic. Maybe it's more of a want than something once you have philosophize The reason to get on pro se. So all of
us more reasonable, logical mind. And if I think that the existential question of the beginning of the universe Yes, he's not there to be seen. I'm not going to hang my hands. But you know, it wasn't there to be seen. By can hear now, but hold on. This is a double standard here. Yeah, you can see the effects of the universe and you can reason look, you that could have been someone other than your door. Yes. You can see the facts of the start of the universe. But let me tell you, here's here's the problem. Okay. You just said I could hear her. Yes. Okay. Now you're using one of the five senses to determine it to determine, but you couldn't see her. There's other senses that were
not applicable in that equation, right. But you still came to the conclusion and there was there could be reasonable skeptical doubt that I can employ. If I was to philosophize as a skeptic and say, Look, hold on, that could have been an alien that was speaking to you on the phone. Yes. That could have been your wife pretending to be your or your husband, you know, pretending to be your daughter. There could have been someone else your other daughter, it could have been, you know, her friend, it could be reasonable. It wasn't empirically. It was reasonable. I mean, why is that reasonable? Why it's reasonable reason to me. Why Why? Because I've heard my daughter's voice
several, many times. Okay. I understand. But what I'm saying to you there is that it can still be doubted. Yes. Okay. But you still you over you override that doubt? Yes. Because you have enough data to conclude in your mind probabilistically that it was your daughter?
Yeah, okay. Fine. Some some degree of empiricism? Yeah. Which can still be doubted because of the reasons I've just told you major percentage. Okay, what I'm saying to you is this. Yeah. In the same way, as you've been able to reason probabilistically that your daughter was on the other side of the phone? Yes. I'm saying to you, if we have no interest in the best explanation, you have different options. However, the universe came from nothing. And in fact, this idea, the postulation, that something can come from nothing is so absurd. That actually let me tell you from reading a lot of philosophy, no one has said it. And the moment some fool tried to say it, Krauss he was refuted by
his own physicist friends so fantastical. Yes, it's ridiculous. It's absurd. It's, it's not witnessed by anyone. It's not empirical, all of the standards that you wish to have, in order to make a reasoned judgement about the truth or falsity of something. We're not present in the postulation that something can come from nothing, and therefore can be rejected. Yeah, yeah. It can be rejected. It can be rejected. And it shall be rejected. And it shall be rejected. I don't think so. Okay, look, here's the thing. What's the evidence? I don't know. Okay, see, look, this is a it's a sight Look, what you have here is some kind of a motorcycle. And most psychiatrists, yeah, I'm not
here to, you know, you know, give you a little drink and until you tell you what, your couch Yeah, see on the couch and psychoanalyze your behavior. But if I were, if I say something, or diagnose you have some kind of cognitive dissonance, because
you might have cognitive dissonance, because the reason why I think you might have cognitive dissonance because you live your life one way. But your beliefs in relation to the ultimate questions are completely contradictory to the way in which you act, Jonathan. So your reason your your faculties and your instruments of reasoning, become completely like you become an extreme skeptic when you're dealing with the ultimate questions, or you're not willing to be that same skeptic. When you're dealing with daily transactions and interact really transactions we see all the time. They're quite benign, but they're not benign. You could it could be a life or death situation
right now. It could be if a doctor came to you my friend and said
You. Let me ask you a question right now. Yeah. If a doctor came to you, let's say, God forbid, yeah, but your daughter's in the hospital, she needed some kind of a transfer of blood? Yes. Well, let's say she even needed a lung transplant.
And the doctor came to you and said, Your daughter needs a lung transplant. Are you the only guy that has matched her? You know, whatever you need to give that? Would you get what you give it? You would give it? But hold on that doctor. He could be making a mistake, my friend, you see could so I would say to the doctor, is there any other way? Now? He say no. So I'm gonna go to someone else. There's no time. He said, You've got one hour. Yeah, she's soap intensive cat. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I would act upon my instincts.
Yeah, and, and do this thing. And save my daughter's life. Okay, you think you're saving your daughter's life? How do you know you're, you're saving your daughter's life? Because I reasonably leave the doctor who said, But hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Yeah, hold on.
Now that you think it's life and death, this is afterlife. And
he said, Look, you see, here's the point. You're willing to put your own. Let's say it takes it could put your own life on the line. Yeah, you're willing to potentially put your own life on the line, and do anything for anything for your daughter. But the methods of skepticism that you're employing in the ultimate questions that we were talking about. were completely thrown out when you were dealing with that inquiry is emotional.
It's emotional. You said it was instinctive, instinctively emotional, no problem is emotional. And there's no contradiction between a good emotional argument and a good rational one human beings are emotional creatures find but you still believe the doctor? Yes. believe that. So you believe the doctor? Yes. Because you trust in the doctor's credentials and authority? Yes. Because you have enough, you have enough reason to believe that that doctor was actually trained and can analyze the data. Yes. So you see here, look, I want you to use that same method of reasoning, when we're dealing with the ultimate choice because you said something very important. You know what you said?
You said it was a matter of life and death. Yes. Let me tell you something, my friend, honestly, yeah. This these ultimate choice questions are not a matter of life and death. You know, they are, they are a matter of life and afterlife. afterlife. Yes. And you know what, let me tell you something. That's an even more hefty inquiry. So you have to let me tell you why I have evidence of this often. Do you have any evidence that your doctor was actually being in this analogy? That is evidence? I have enough evidence that the doctor had? I have looked? Yes, I do. Do you know why? Let me tell you why. Let me explain. Let me tell you how. Let me explain. You know, why did you trust a
doctor when he was telling you to do XYZ, once again, is quite benign. It's not benign. This doesn't have life and death, life and death. This is life and death. You trusted him putting your own life? Why do you trust him put people in trust to look after our health? why did why did you trust them? You trusted him? You trusted him? Because? The person of authority
Yes. And your mind you reason? It was? It was it was an appropriate action, a responsible action? To trust his judgment? Yes. So in other words, you vested authority in the doctor. Yes. Now what I'm saying is this. Why do I have as much conviction as I do, that there's an afterlife because I vest authority in the authorship of the last and final message to humankind, which I believe is the Quran? Have you seen this?
entity? What? I've seen a doctor? Yes. Okay, certification. But you haven't seen what he has seen? In this analogy, right. Your doctor who you've seen is telling you that there are certain dysfunctionality is in your saying, your daughter's health, that you have not seen, but you've instead only witnessed the testimony of the doctor. But you have as much conviction in the testimony as you probably would have if he had shown you x rays. So I have an interaction with another human being. Yes, but you've invested you're in now you've given that human being authority. Yes. If the doctor said, Look,
listen to me carefully.
Listen, whatsoever. Again, sorry, Charles Charles, he says, Listen, Charles, you need to give your lung right now. Because you're the only one. I'm not a doctor. I don't know I'm talking about but you need to give it could have an impact on you. Yes. But it's a life and death situation. And then he says this, he says, come into my office, I'll show you all of the reasons why I came to my conclusion if you would like, but that could slow the process down. And it could also endanger your daughter's life. What would you do? Would you go to the office or not?
Is that what you say to the doctor?
What you see what I'm saying? Yeah.
I think you do. Think about it deeply. I know. I know.
These down downs. I know you see down I don't know, though you just reviewed a video when it comes out. Think about it twice, three times. Have a tea think about it fourth time and then you'll know what I'm talking about how many times maybe five actually. Okay guys deliver