# Shadee Elmasry – Quranic Contingency Argument Use This to Prove God

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.
00:00:03 --> 00:00:09

syllogism It works like this it says A is B, the universe is

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

contingent all B is C, every contingent thing depends on a

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

necessary being to make it the way that it is therefore, ASC

00:00:19 --> 00:00:22

therefore, the universe depends on unnecessary being to make it the

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

way that it is. So then you take each syllogism, each statement in

00:00:27 --> 00:00:31

the solution and we could you call a premise. And here on the right

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

hand side, you can label it as being inferential or non

00:00:34 --> 00:00:38

inferential. Inferential means that it's something that needs

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

another argument. Non inferential means it's known without argument

00:00:42 --> 00:00:48

literally. So, this year then, you can unpack it. And I have another

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

I have another syllogism that unpacks it. And the conclusion of

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

this other syllogism is this is the syllogism. And this is this is

00:00:57 --> 00:01:00

what so what you asked like, this is what the syllogism would would

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

look like. So so the way the way that this works is we use it uses

00:01:07 --> 00:01:13

terms and uses technical terms. So I can I can, what I prefer to do

00:01:13 --> 00:01:17

is let me let me not, I'll come back to this in a second. Let's

00:01:17 --> 00:01:21

not use technical terms for a moment. Let's try and understand

00:01:21 --> 00:01:28

this first, at an intuitive level, because first we grasp at an

00:01:28 --> 00:01:31

intuitive level, and then we learn the technical terms and structure

00:01:31 --> 00:01:36

so that we can defend it. At an intuitive level, the idea behind

00:01:36 --> 00:01:42

the contingency argument is that everything in the universe is

00:01:42 --> 00:01:47

dependent. contingency means dependency. So what does it mean

00:01:47 --> 00:01:50

it's dependent, it means that it needs something else to make it

00:01:50 --> 00:01:53

how it is. And we see this

00:01:54 --> 00:01:58

intuitively. So I look at the sun, I say why is it shining? The fact

00:01:58 --> 00:02:05

that I say sun, why are you shining? means that I can see that

00:02:05 --> 00:02:08

it needs something to make it shine. I look at the wind and it's

00:02:08 --> 00:02:12

blowing. I say wind, why are you blowing? The fact that I asked

00:02:12 --> 00:02:17

this question means that I see it needs something to make it glow.

00:02:17 --> 00:02:22

So the entire scientific enterprise, it assumes that

00:02:22 --> 00:02:25

everything in the universe needs an explanation and things.

00:02:26 --> 00:02:30

Yeah, sorry to interrupt. But I just wanted to clarify, before

00:02:30 --> 00:02:31

cutting you off there.

00:02:32 --> 00:02:35

We don't need to really prove that. Number one. It's self

00:02:35 --> 00:02:40

explanatory, self observable, but also the worldview that we're

00:02:40 --> 00:02:42

talking to scientists, the scientific worldview that we're

00:02:42 --> 00:02:49

talking to scientism also admits that, yes. Okay. That's exactly.

00:02:49 --> 00:02:52

And that's actually so So somebody says that what if somebody denies

00:02:52 --> 00:02:56

this? And then the most effective way to kind of combat it is to say

00:02:56 --> 00:02:59

that, well, you can't really do science without it. And since

00:02:59 --> 00:03:01

everybody believes in science,

00:03:02 --> 00:03:06

we both sides agreed to the concept universe is in need of

00:03:06 --> 00:03:10

things, everything in the in the world that we see is in need of

00:03:10 --> 00:03:15

something else. Exactly. Okay. Yeah. That's the first step. Now,

00:03:15 --> 00:03:20

the second step is we want to, we want to show that the thing that

00:03:20 --> 00:03:25

it's in need of cannot be in need of anything else. And that's what

00:03:25 --> 00:03:27

we call a necessary being.

00:03:28 --> 00:03:31

So and this is where we differ with the materialist with the

00:03:31 --> 00:03:36

scientific materialist. We differ with them, because they say that

00:03:36 --> 00:03:40

there's that other dependent things in the universe can make

00:03:41 --> 00:03:45

things in the universe the way that they are. So they say that

00:03:45 --> 00:03:47

it's medicine

00:03:48 --> 00:03:54

makes the cure, fire causes the burning. That's what they say. We

00:03:54 --> 00:03:57

say no, we dispute that. We say that, no, we agree that there was

00:03:57 --> 00:04:03

dependent but the dependency of things can only be explained by

00:04:03 --> 00:04:08

something that's independent. So there now this argument is made in

00:04:08 --> 00:04:12

many different forms. And I chose the one that was actually I take

00:04:12 --> 00:04:16

it from Mr. Sabri in his biography he uses, he uses this

00:04:16 --> 00:04:19

demonstration, he thinks it's this clearest one. He says that,

00:04:19 --> 00:04:24

imagine a long line of leaning people. He says that if you have

00:04:24 --> 00:04:30

one person, and that person is leaning on someone else, now what

00:04:30 --> 00:04:33

you have a situation where this person who's leaning is dependent,

00:04:33 --> 00:04:36

and he's being held up by someone else. Now let's lean this other

00:04:36 --> 00:04:40

person back to lean this other person back to somebody else

00:04:40 --> 00:04:44

holding them up. And now what's the important thing to observe

00:04:44 --> 00:04:47

here is that this person is that the thing in the middle now isn't

00:04:47 --> 00:04:51

doing anything. Because if the person at the end goes, they all

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

fall down.

00:04:52 --> 00:04:57

And this illustrates a principle and the principle is that if a

00:04:58 --> 00:04:59

depends on B

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

and B depends on c, then you b isn't doing anything. Yeah, a

00:05:04 --> 00:05:09

really just depends on c. Correct. So that means that if you explain

00:05:09 --> 00:05:13

something in the universe with something else in the universe

00:05:13 --> 00:05:16

that's also dependent, then that thing in the universe doesn't

00:05:16 --> 00:05:21

really explain it, it's the thing that it depends on that that is

00:05:21 --> 00:05:26

explaining it. And if everything in the universe is dependent, then

00:05:26 --> 00:05:29

nothing in the UI, then you don't have anything to explain what's

00:05:29 --> 00:05:34

happening. And so what you need is you will need something that

00:05:34 --> 00:05:37

doesn't need anything. And it's that thing that's making

00:05:37 --> 00:05:41

everything the way that it is. Yep. Okay. So

00:05:42 --> 00:05:48

in this example of dependency, if they're all connected in a circle,

00:05:49 --> 00:05:54

okay, so we didn't get we I, we submit to the line of leaning

00:05:54 --> 00:05:58

people, the line of leaning people has to have a wall or a person,

00:05:59 --> 00:06:02

leaning them supporting them. What if, though they're in a circle?

00:06:04 --> 00:06:12

Yeah, so circularity. Yeah. So, circularity is, in the physical

00:06:12 --> 00:06:14

example of circularity.

00:06:15 --> 00:06:19

In that physical example of circularity, the people who are

00:06:19 --> 00:06:23

leaning are not really completely dependent on the thing behind

00:06:23 --> 00:06:26

them, because they're actually supporting the person ahead of

00:06:26 --> 00:06:32

them. So if you actually work out the the laws of physics and the

00:06:32 --> 00:06:37

way that they work, there's a each person in the line is doing

00:06:37 --> 00:06:41

something to the person in front of him, and then being held by the

00:06:41 --> 00:06:46

person behind him. So it's not a situation where things are kind

00:06:46 --> 00:06:51

of, are really completely dependent on something else. So

00:06:51 --> 00:06:55

the so that's, that's, and so this analogy of the long line of

00:06:55 --> 00:07:00

meaning people, it is an analogy, it's not something we're not

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

saying, actually, that the things the contingent things in the

00:07:04 --> 00:07:08

universe are all depending on each are lined up. And God is at the

00:07:08 --> 00:07:11

end, what we're really saying is that God is holding everything

00:07:11 --> 00:07:16

else up immediately. This is a proof by contradiction, it saying

00:07:16 --> 00:07:19

that if contingent things were the only thing, then there would be

00:07:19 --> 00:07:27

nothing to hold them up. So the situation that best describes the

00:07:27 --> 00:07:31

situation that scientists materials are dealing with is the

00:07:31 --> 00:07:33

long line of leading people, but you can use other analogies too.

00:07:34 --> 00:07:37

So one of one of my one of my students, he said, he said that,

00:07:37 --> 00:07:40

you know, the way that what helps him is to instead of having a line

00:07:40 --> 00:07:43

of people to have somebody standing on the shoulders of

00:07:43 --> 00:07:47

somebody else, and that person standing on the shoulders of

00:07:47 --> 00:07:49

somebody else. And then you keep on doing that, instead, there's no

00:07:49 --> 00:07:53

ground, what happens, they're all falling. Now you can't get in a

00:07:53 --> 00:07:53

circle.

00:07:54 --> 00:07:58

It doesn't it doesn't help you. So and you have other analogies too.

00:07:58 --> 00:08:02

But there's this general idea, there's it's an intuition that if

00:08:02 --> 00:08:05

a depends on B, B depends on c b isn't doing anything a depends on

00:08:05 --> 00:08:10

c, if you get that, then you can get the conclusion, what have some

00:08:10 --> 00:08:12

atheists said in response to this.

00:08:13 --> 00:08:19

So atheists have yet to respond to this. But there are some

00:08:19 --> 00:08:23

responses, I'll come to them. But this form of the argument is not

00:08:23 --> 00:08:27

made in the mainstream. There is a contingency argument that Thomas

00:08:27 --> 00:08:31

Aquinas made like that's made, but they're not. They're not the same

00:08:31 --> 00:08:34

because nobody comes to the radical conclusion that the

00:08:34 --> 00:08:38

Muslims do, which is that the universe completely depends on

00:08:38 --> 00:08:42

God, completely and utterly. But the objections that they normally

00:08:42 --> 00:08:46

make are, they can, they can only make one of two objections.

00:08:46 --> 00:08:50

Because if you put everything into a syllogism, if you put everything

00:08:50 --> 00:08:54

into a syllogism, and that's that's this is why syllogisms are

00:08:54 --> 00:08:57

important. If you put into a syllogism, what is a syllogism? It

00:08:57 --> 00:09:01

says that if you accept the first premise, you see one and you

00:09:01 --> 00:09:05

accept the second premise QC two, you have to accept the conclusion.

00:09:06 --> 00:09:11

If you if you agree, ASB, if you agree BSC, you have to agree that

00:09:11 --> 00:09:15

a is the ASC. And if you don't agree that AC, you're only allowed

00:09:15 --> 00:09:20

to do that, if you disagree with one of the two premises. So what

00:09:20 --> 00:09:23

we want you to do in this way is you can find the debate and that

00:09:23 --> 00:09:27

debate now happens on your terms. You're not so now I've confined

00:09:27 --> 00:09:30

the beach. Now, in order for an atheist to disagree he has to

00:09:30 --> 00:09:33

disagree with the first premise, or he has to disagree with the

00:09:33 --> 00:09:36

second premise. So the first premise, the universe is

00:09:36 --> 00:09:38

contingent, the only thing he can say the universe is not

00:09:38 --> 00:09:41

contingent. And we already talked about how to kind of respond to

00:09:41 --> 00:09:46

that to say that Well, science presumes contingency that there's

00:09:46 --> 00:09:51

other ways to but the second thing here, there is the most common

00:09:51 --> 00:09:56

objection is the the most common objection to the second thing is

00:09:56 --> 00:09:59

something called the fallacy of composition. Okay, so the fallacy

00:09:59 --> 00:09:59

of composition whatever.

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

done here is I've actually cataloged all of the possible

00:10:02 --> 00:10:06

objections and their answers. So you can object here, or you can

00:10:06 --> 00:10:08

object with the fallacy of composition. So the fallacy of

00:10:08 --> 00:10:15

composition, it says that, that, okay, this thing in the universe

00:10:15 --> 00:10:19

is contingent, and this thing in the universe is contingent, the

00:10:19 --> 00:10:22

individual things in the universe are contingent, but the universe

00:10:22 --> 00:10:29

as a whole, is not contingent. Because for you to go from the

00:10:29 --> 00:10:33

contingency of the part, to the contingency of the whole,

00:10:33 --> 00:10:37

committed logical fallacy, you cannot assume that just because

00:10:37 --> 00:10:40

the parts are contingent, that the hole is contingent,

00:10:41 --> 00:10:47

and, and they give an example. And they'll say that the bricks in a

00:10:47 --> 00:10:52

wall are all small. Does that mean that the entire wall is small,

00:10:52 --> 00:10:56

though it doesn't, to say that because the bricks are small, the

00:10:56 --> 00:11:00

wall that is composed of those bricks, commits the fallacy of

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

composition. So this is a this is a an objection that they will that

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

they will raise. And so the answer to that objection, is to say is

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

you can answer in a number of different ways.

00:11:15 --> 00:11:19

The first way is to say that, actually, you don't need to say

00:11:19 --> 00:11:22

the entire universe is contingent, just as long as one thing is

00:11:22 --> 00:11:25

contingent, it means a necessary being. So you just kind of

00:11:25 --> 00:11:30

sidestep the whole thing. Another way, is to say this is the most

00:11:30 --> 00:11:34

comprehensive way, it's to say that this gets a little bit

00:11:34 --> 00:11:38

technical, but, you know, it's a hopefully, like, it's okay. But

00:11:38 --> 00:11:41

it's to say that the fallacy of composition is an informal

00:11:41 --> 00:11:45

fallacy. An informal fallacy means it's a fallacy that's not related

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

to the abstract form of the argument as BBFC, ASC. That's the

00:11:49 --> 00:11:55

form and informal fallacy has to do with the subject matter. So

00:11:55 --> 00:11:57

there are cases where

00:11:58 --> 00:12:03

inferring extrapolating the property of the part to the whole

00:12:03 --> 00:12:08

is fallacious, such as when you extrapolate the smallest of the

00:12:08 --> 00:12:11

brick to the smallest of the wall, that's fallacious. But there's

00:12:11 --> 00:12:14

other cases where it's not fallacious. The bricks in the wall

00:12:14 --> 00:12:18

are red, therefore, the whole wall is red correct? The bricks in the

00:12:18 --> 00:12:22

wall are heavy, therefore, the whole wall is heavy, correct. The

00:12:22 --> 00:12:24

bricks in the wall are hard, therefore, the whole world is

00:12:24 --> 00:12:29

hard, correct. So, the question is that if we say the things in the

00:12:29 --> 00:12:32

universe are contingent, therefore, the whole universe is

00:12:32 --> 00:12:37

contingent, is it like saying the bricks in the wall are small

00:12:37 --> 00:12:41

therefore, the whole wall is small fallacy or is it like saying the

00:12:41 --> 00:12:45

bricks in the wall are hard? Therefore, the whole wall wall is

00:12:45 --> 00:12:51

hard? Correct? Like the latter, and I will clearly correct and one

00:12:51 --> 00:12:57

would also be able to say that every hole is contingent, because

00:12:57 --> 00:13:01

by saying hole, you were inferring the existence of parts, therefore,

00:13:01 --> 00:13:06

it is dependent upon parts. You can see that so a whole can never

00:13:06 --> 00:13:11

be separated from its parts and can never have a different essence

00:13:11 --> 00:13:17

than its parts. Yes, then, by nature, a whole must be dependent.

00:13:17 --> 00:13:21

Right the entire object must be dependent because just by

00:13:21 --> 00:13:25

definition, it is consistent of smaller objects, therefore

00:13:25 --> 00:13:26

dependent upon them.

Share Page