Shadee Elmasry – Quranic Contingency Argument Use This to Prove God
AI: Summary ©
The syllogic argument in science involves proving that everything in the universe is dependent on a certain factor called a "monetary being" and proving that the universe is contingent on the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is a fallacy of composition, and the argument is a general one that says the universe is contingent on the fallacy of composition. The segment concludes that the universe is contingent on the fallacy of composition.
AI: Summary ©
syllogism It works like this it says A is B, the universe is
contingent all B is C, every contingent thing depends on a
necessary being to make it the way that it is therefore, ASC
therefore, the universe depends on unnecessary being to make it the
way that it is. So then you take each syllogism, each statement in
the solution and we could you call a premise. And here on the right
hand side, you can label it as being inferential or non
inferential. Inferential means that it's something that needs
another argument. Non inferential means it's known without argument
literally. So, this year then, you can unpack it. And I have another
I have another syllogism that unpacks it. And the conclusion of
this other syllogism is this is the syllogism. And this is this is
what so what you asked like, this is what the syllogism would would
look like. So so the way the way that this works is we use it uses
terms and uses technical terms. So I can I can, what I prefer to do
is let me let me not, I'll come back to this in a second. Let's
not use technical terms for a moment. Let's try and understand
this first, at an intuitive level, because first we grasp at an
intuitive level, and then we learn the technical terms and structure
so that we can defend it. At an intuitive level, the idea behind
the contingency argument is that everything in the universe is
dependent. contingency means dependency. So what does it mean
it's dependent, it means that it needs something else to make it
how it is. And we see this
intuitively. So I look at the sun, I say why is it shining? The fact
that I say sun, why are you shining? means that I can see that
it needs something to make it shine. I look at the wind and it's
blowing. I say wind, why are you blowing? The fact that I asked
this question means that I see it needs something to make it glow.
So the entire scientific enterprise, it assumes that
everything in the universe needs an explanation and things.
Yeah, sorry to interrupt. But I just wanted to clarify, before
cutting you off there.
We don't need to really prove that. Number one. It's self
explanatory, self observable, but also the worldview that we're
talking to scientists, the scientific worldview that we're
talking to scientism also admits that, yes. Okay. That's exactly.
And that's actually so So somebody says that what if somebody denies
this? And then the most effective way to kind of combat it is to say
that, well, you can't really do science without it. And since
everybody believes in science,
we both sides agreed to the concept universe is in need of
things, everything in the in the world that we see is in need of
something else. Exactly. Okay. Yeah. That's the first step. Now,
the second step is we want to, we want to show that the thing that
it's in need of cannot be in need of anything else. And that's what
we call a necessary being.
So and this is where we differ with the materialist with the
scientific materialist. We differ with them, because they say that
there's that other dependent things in the universe can make
things in the universe the way that they are. So they say that
it's medicine
makes the cure, fire causes the burning. That's what they say. We
say no, we dispute that. We say that, no, we agree that there was
dependent but the dependency of things can only be explained by
something that's independent. So there now this argument is made in
many different forms. And I chose the one that was actually I take
it from Mr. Sabri in his biography he uses, he uses this
demonstration, he thinks it's this clearest one. He says that,
imagine a long line of leaning people. He says that if you have
one person, and that person is leaning on someone else, now what
you have a situation where this person who's leaning is dependent,
and he's being held up by someone else. Now let's lean this other
person back to lean this other person back to somebody else
holding them up. And now what's the important thing to observe
here is that this person is that the thing in the middle now isn't
doing anything. Because if the person at the end goes, they all
fall down.
And this illustrates a principle and the principle is that if a
depends on B
and B depends on c, then you b isn't doing anything. Yeah, a
really just depends on c. Correct. So that means that if you explain
something in the universe with something else in the universe
that's also dependent, then that thing in the universe doesn't
really explain it, it's the thing that it depends on that that is
explaining it. And if everything in the universe is dependent, then
nothing in the UI, then you don't have anything to explain what's
happening. And so what you need is you will need something that
doesn't need anything. And it's that thing that's making
everything the way that it is. Yep. Okay. So
in this example of dependency, if they're all connected in a circle,
okay, so we didn't get we I, we submit to the line of leaning
people, the line of leaning people has to have a wall or a person,
leaning them supporting them. What if, though they're in a circle?
Yeah, so circularity. Yeah. So, circularity is, in the physical
example of circularity.
In that physical example of circularity, the people who are
leaning are not really completely dependent on the thing behind
them, because they're actually supporting the person ahead of
them. So if you actually work out the the laws of physics and the
way that they work, there's a each person in the line is doing
something to the person in front of him, and then being held by the
person behind him. So it's not a situation where things are kind
of, are really completely dependent on something else. So
the so that's, that's, and so this analogy of the long line of
meaning people, it is an analogy, it's not something we're not
saying, actually, that the things the contingent things in the
universe are all depending on each are lined up. And God is at the
end, what we're really saying is that God is holding everything
else up immediately. This is a proof by contradiction, it saying
that if contingent things were the only thing, then there would be
nothing to hold them up. So the situation that best describes the
situation that scientists materials are dealing with is the
long line of leading people, but you can use other analogies too.
So one of one of my one of my students, he said, he said that,
you know, the way that what helps him is to instead of having a line
of people to have somebody standing on the shoulders of
somebody else, and that person standing on the shoulders of
somebody else. And then you keep on doing that, instead, there's no
ground, what happens, they're all falling. Now you can't get in a
circle.
It doesn't it doesn't help you. So and you have other analogies too.
But there's this general idea, there's it's an intuition that if
a depends on B, B depends on c b isn't doing anything a depends on
c, if you get that, then you can get the conclusion, what have some
atheists said in response to this.
So atheists have yet to respond to this. But there are some
responses, I'll come to them. But this form of the argument is not
made in the mainstream. There is a contingency argument that Thomas
Aquinas made like that's made, but they're not. They're not the same
because nobody comes to the radical conclusion that the
Muslims do, which is that the universe completely depends on
God, completely and utterly. But the objections that they normally
make are, they can, they can only make one of two objections.
Because if you put everything into a syllogism, if you put everything
into a syllogism, and that's that's this is why syllogisms are
important. If you put into a syllogism, what is a syllogism? It
says that if you accept the first premise, you see one and you
accept the second premise QC two, you have to accept the conclusion.
If you if you agree, ASB, if you agree BSC, you have to agree that
a is the ASC. And if you don't agree that AC, you're only allowed
to do that, if you disagree with one of the two premises. So what
we want you to do in this way is you can find the debate and that
debate now happens on your terms. You're not so now I've confined
the beach. Now, in order for an atheist to disagree he has to
disagree with the first premise, or he has to disagree with the
second premise. So the first premise, the universe is
contingent, the only thing he can say the universe is not
contingent. And we already talked about how to kind of respond to
that to say that Well, science presumes contingency that there's
other ways to but the second thing here, there is the most common
objection is the the most common objection to the second thing is
something called the fallacy of composition. Okay, so the fallacy
of composition whatever.
done here is I've actually cataloged all of the possible
objections and their answers. So you can object here, or you can
object with the fallacy of composition. So the fallacy of
composition, it says that, that, okay, this thing in the universe
is contingent, and this thing in the universe is contingent, the
individual things in the universe are contingent, but the universe
as a whole, is not contingent. Because for you to go from the
contingency of the part, to the contingency of the whole,
committed logical fallacy, you cannot assume that just because
the parts are contingent, that the hole is contingent,
and, and they give an example. And they'll say that the bricks in a
wall are all small. Does that mean that the entire wall is small,
though it doesn't, to say that because the bricks are small, the
wall that is composed of those bricks, commits the fallacy of
composition. So this is a this is a an objection that they will that
they will raise. And so the answer to that objection, is to say is
you can answer in a number of different ways.
The first way is to say that, actually, you don't need to say
the entire universe is contingent, just as long as one thing is
contingent, it means a necessary being. So you just kind of
sidestep the whole thing. Another way, is to say this is the most
comprehensive way, it's to say that this gets a little bit
technical, but, you know, it's a hopefully, like, it's okay. But
it's to say that the fallacy of composition is an informal
fallacy. An informal fallacy means it's a fallacy that's not related
to the abstract form of the argument as BBFC, ASC. That's the
form and informal fallacy has to do with the subject matter. So
there are cases where
inferring extrapolating the property of the part to the whole
is fallacious, such as when you extrapolate the smallest of the
brick to the smallest of the wall, that's fallacious. But there's
other cases where it's not fallacious. The bricks in the wall
are red, therefore, the whole wall is red correct? The bricks in the
wall are heavy, therefore, the whole wall is heavy, correct. The
bricks in the wall are hard, therefore, the whole world is
hard, correct. So, the question is that if we say the things in the
universe are contingent, therefore, the whole universe is
contingent, is it like saying the bricks in the wall are small
therefore, the whole wall is small fallacy or is it like saying the
bricks in the wall are hard? Therefore, the whole wall wall is
hard? Correct? Like the latter, and I will clearly correct and one
would also be able to say that every hole is contingent, because
by saying hole, you were inferring the existence of parts, therefore,
it is dependent upon parts. You can see that so a whole can never
be separated from its parts and can never have a different essence
than its parts. Yes, then, by nature, a whole must be dependent.
Right the entire object must be dependent because just by
definition, it is consistent of smaller objects, therefore
dependent upon them.