How Do You Measure Truth ? (2018-01-22) ​

0:00:08 for example if you say that okay
0:00:11 something is controversial and therefore
0:00:13 it's less likely to be true then your
0:00:16 your your attaching the truth value of
0:00:18 that thing with what people's perception
0:00:20 of it is so it's a very good general
0:00:21 rule but like I said see this fallacy
0:00:24 isn't always so enlightening because do
0:00:28 you believe in Henry that we've existed
0:00:31 okay because it's not a very
0:00:32 controversial thing both agree and why
0:00:34 the egg now okay we're both subjects of
0:00:37 the fallacy on things like a good
0:00:42 example giant squid giant squid some
0:00:46 scientists believe don't exist because
0:00:49 there's only been like five ever found
0:00:51 now why would you believe that giant
0:00:53 squid exists at the bottom of the ocean
0:00:55 floor
0:00:55 what would you say depends on how you
0:00:57 define giant man I've seen squids
0:01:02 biological definition which is a giant
0:01:04 so I my giant anyways you know I say
0:01:10 Darren I never say something funny just
0:01:11 to kind of prick guys a bit you know I
0:01:14 didn't see my dad for a long time yeah
0:01:16 he went abroad and whatnot and he came
0:01:17 back and he looked at me because I'm
0:01:19 taller than him and he looked at me he
0:01:21 goes are you giant and I don't know how
0:01:24 to answer that question right the
0:01:26 question is a lot of these things depend
0:01:27 upon definition issue I'm saying
0:01:29 so you said giant squid what's your
0:01:31 definition of giant we all squid is
0:01:33 that's a different story
0:01:35 right well I'm saying he generally is
0:01:36 what we to understand is that in
0:01:39 theological discussions we shouldn't
0:01:42 retreat into an approach we shouldn't
0:01:45 have pre retreat into a place where we
0:01:48 use different standards as we do in
0:01:51 other places for example if in
0:01:52 philosophy it's not in general in
0:01:54 history wherever you have a certain
0:01:55 standard of proof you're willing to
0:01:57 accept that Henry days existed you're
0:01:58 willing to accept that the Holocaust
0:02:01 happen because of testimonial evidence
0:02:03 if that's your approach fine that's fine
0:02:06 now let's talk about that approach I
0:02:07 haven't got a problem with I think
0:02:08 that's a good approach yeah
0:02:10 generally speaking I haven't been to 200
0:02:12 countries in the world but I know that
0:02:14 they exist right I have confidence that
0:02:16 they exist I just say something that see
0:02:18 this is where the error occurs I think
0:02:19 it's done you go from this very specific
0:02:22 example like you said there's many
0:02:24 specific examples and then you said
0:02:26 generally speaking we don't want to
0:02:28 generally speak about these things this
0:02:30 is the point about what things about the
0:02:33 standards and different definitions okay
0:02:37 okay so tell me fine if you're saying
0:02:40 that I'm saying there are general
0:02:42 principles we can employ in life yeah
0:02:44 so I'm saying that this is a principle
0:02:47 I'm putting in place if you're saying
0:02:49 for the most part I accept testimonial
0:02:53 account so long as it so long as it
0:02:55 fulfills X Y Zed criteria I make I'm
0:02:59 really making the case for specificity
0:03:06 if you said the speakers coexist I would
0:03:09 have maybe referred to two requirements
0:03:25 so tell me what so ok once I said what
0:03:30 once again what has I said sorry we want
0:03:33 to think we are on the same page right
0:03:35 if what you're saying is that for
0:03:37 example it's controversial for a reason
0:03:42 which relates to its for example the
0:03:44 primary source materials and in the case
0:03:46 of history yeah so something like the
0:03:48 existence of I don't know Cyprus too
0:03:50 great or something yeah or whatever you
0:03:53 want something obscure something which
0:03:55 happened in the Bronze Age or something
0:03:56 like that where the primary source
0:03:57 materials are not conclusive and you
0:04:00 said ok that's controversial for an
0:04:01 academic reason that's different to
0:04:03 saying this controversial for what I
0:04:05 refer to as a democratic reason which is
0:04:07 kind of like okay people people differ
0:04:09 on this people differ on almost
0:04:11 everything right thing not nothing is
0:04:12 the same thing why isn't why is it
0:04:14 different academic
0:04:15 okay so academic reasons usually cite
0:04:18 evidence is where is the laypeople
0:04:21 I'm not specialist enough to cite those
0:04:23 evidences all the time and it goes back
0:04:24 to Socrates definition of sorry
0:04:26 criticism of democracy he says that
0:04:29 democracy is his criticism of it was
0:04:32 that democracy is not the be-all and
0:04:34 end-all because not everyone is a
0:04:36 specialist to talk about politics now
0:04:38 the same thing applies for history and
0:04:39 science so if for example me and you
0:04:42 differ on a scientific reality is
0:04:44 different too if scientists have the
0:04:46 highest evidence differ for
0:04:48 methodological reasons does that make
0:04:50 sense
0:04:51 kind of but I feel like we go the point
0:04:54 was about you said academic principles
0:04:56 would be different from normal people no
0:04:58 I'm saying is what did you mean okay let
0:04:59 me tell you one more time you said if
0:05:01 something looks fun your your objection
0:05:03 to testimonial account seems to be that
0:05:06 if something is controversial then the
0:05:11 question mark ought to be put on it yeah
0:05:12 I'm saying to you that is a justifiable
0:05:15 stance to have in some in some cases in
0:05:18 other cases it's not justifiable so in
0:05:20 if it's controversial academically
0:05:23 because the evidence base whether it be
0:05:25 primary or secondary source evidences
0:05:27 it's questionable
0:05:28 that's justifiable controversy which
0:05:30 gives you the right to put a question
0:05:31 mark on it but if it's controversial for
0:05:34 popular reasons which the lay audience
0:05:36 might not be acquainted with the the
0:05:39 academic realities of that particular
0:05:40 thing then it doesn't carry the same
0:05:42 with epistemic way they are employed and
0:05:45 they can be intertwined they often are
0:05:47 intertwined but I'm not saying they
0:05:48 always are which is the point I'm making
0:05:50 sure okay fine so generally now this why
0:05:53 is this relevant to the Atheist /cs
0:05:56 debate because now we're living in the
0:05:58 West and for the most part there is a
0:06:00 popular culture of atheism now if you
0:06:02 look at the census in 2001 there was
0:06:05 some 76% Christians in this country
0:06:07 right and 2011 it went down to some 54
0:06:10 or something like three yeah so went
0:06:11 down by 20 so 20 to 20 percent of people
0:06:15 left Christianity
0:06:16 yeah in 10 years so if we were to
0:06:18 consult the general mass the popular
0:06:21 opinion okay that's going to give us a
0:06:23 taste of what people think of atheism
0:06:25 now because we're social creatures and
0:06:26 we're prone to secondary socialization
0:06:29 in the context of whatever country we're
0:06:31 living in we're going to absorb some of
0:06:34 that energy but or some of that popular
0:06:36 opinion so I'm saying is that when
0:06:38 you're approaching subjects sometimes
0:06:40 you have to strip yourself of your
0:06:42 sociological bias and start looking at
0:06:44 things once again on their academic
0:06:45 mirror which is why we had to make the
0:06:47 distinction between what I refer to as a
0:06:49 popular a popular controversy versus an
0:06:52 academic or otherwise evidence-based
0:06:55 controversy do you see what I'm saying
0:06:56 is okay but the thing is when I said
0:06:59 they intertwine they tend to intertwine
0:07:00 most like in the scientific theological
0:07:03 places you know because there's an
0:07:05 academic lack of academic consensus in
0:07:09 science in evolution for example and in
0:07:12 theology it influences the popular I
0:07:15 agree sometimes that can be the case
0:07:16 isn't it always the case of science and
0:07:18 religion no science and religion it's
0:07:20 not what you can't see always once again
0:07:21 to take your words you can't take it
0:07:25 right most evolutionary psychologists
0:07:32 disagree with many dissolution area
0:07:35 biologists is because of the a cadet the
0:07:37 lack of academic consensus and that
0:07:39 trickles down into conversations as we
0:07:42 disappear absolutely no pair sadly the
0:07:44 same in religion yes certainly it can't
0:07:46 be the same religion so I'm saying I
0:07:47 don't think it's a point of disagreement
0:07:49 anyway the point is that the point is
0:07:51 this right so long as the you're talking
0:07:54 about testimony so that's one way of you
0:07:56 ascertaining the truth right
0:07:57 you're ascertaining something using
0:07:59 testimonial account that meets a certain
0:08:02 methodological criteria that's what you
0:08:04 call history the study of history is
0:08:05 based on that actually primary sources -
0:08:08 primary sources yeah you look at things
0:08:10 on their mirror and see how many people
0:08:12 have affirmed these things terrify one
0:08:14 more yeah
0:08:18 you know how I'm basically in a nutshell
0:08:20 vote sorry because you're going to point
0:08:22 about present vs. history yeah
0:08:24 history is the study of the past now the
0:08:27 conversation I had with you like two
0:08:28 minutes ago that's the site that's the
0:08:30 past right
0:08:30 everything is history in a sense if you
0:08:32 want everything is history in a sense
0:08:34 right however I know generally
0:08:37 historians in in the academic world they
0:08:39 won't say something is history unless
0:08:40 it's at least a decade or two decades
0:08:42 right well that's something else right
0:08:44 but what I'm saying to you is the
0:08:46 methodological approach can sometimes be
0:08:48 used if not exactly the same but in a
0:08:50 similar way in different in different
0:08:53 conversations like philosophical
0:08:55 conversations and elsewhere you know
0:08:57 you're your mother's son because your
0:08:59 mother the woman who brought you up gave
0:09:02 you a testimonial account she told you
0:09:03 your name is Darren okay I'm your mum
0:09:06 you grew up in this house but you didn't
0:09:08 demand to see like I'm saying you're
0:09:10 your birth certificate and to do a DNA
0:09:14 test and to go through the actual math
0:09:16 you get me so from that you have do you
0:09:19 have any doubt that your mum is your mum
0:09:21 no but like I said so testimony in that
0:09:24 case that's why it's funny right right
0:09:26 right okay you made a point about
0:09:28 history the thing is with history the
0:09:29 reason you can't compare history to the
0:09:31 study of a tree or sometimes in study of
0:09:33 the study of a tree giant squid it's
0:09:37 because
0:09:38 the logical approach it's not not really
0:09:42 my well let me tell you why because
0:09:43 history isn't the past it's the study of
0:09:47 the past okay its history this is one
0:09:53 method I mean you should know if you do
0:09:55 if you've done this that there's many
0:09:57 different types of historical methods
0:10:01 you could say historical materialist
0:10:03 ways of looking at history historicism
0:10:06 historiography these are very different
0:10:09 ways of trying to ascertain the actions
0:10:13 of the part that's why history is formal
0:10:17 contentiousness almost topic that I can
0:10:23 think of outside of religion of science
0:10:24 you know sociology is very the way you
0:10:32 put it that already I agree with the way
0:10:34 you well I've said to you before
0:10:38 something being contentious and
0:10:39 controversial doesn't depreciate from
0:10:41 its absolute truth standard in a
0:10:44 nutshell it's like that's one number two
0:10:46 the study of history the study of
0:10:48 history just like the study of science
0:10:49 sociology and psychology and all these
0:10:51 things is its premise on kind of
0:10:55 empiricism and in a kind of induction
0:10:58 yes yeah so you you were kind of making
0:11:01 a big separation between history and
0:11:02 science but in essence both of those
0:11:04 studies depend upon empirical and
0:11:06 inductive methods and I can tell you
0:11:08 what anything really okay yeah go ahead
0:11:11 and tell me how they're done that would
0:11:12 be really interesting history doesn't
0:11:15 rely on you
0:11:15 okay so how'd you how'd you collect
0:11:18 evidence whatever this empirical
0:11:19 evidence is measurable for sensitive
0:11:22 evidence
0:11:23 yeah okay so you see the evidence you
0:11:25 hear the evidence for example yeah I
0:11:27 look at the tree
0:11:28 I studies you look at the primary source
0:11:29 evidence here and then I can say no but
0:11:31 in history you're looking at you're
0:11:32 looking you're feel is empirical for
0:11:35 some people always in person we have a
0:11:37 different definition of empiricism
0:11:38 because nah-nah-nah if there is one
0:11:40 definition of empiricism okay so give me
0:11:42 an example of a historical piece of
0:11:44 empirical evidence and any evidence is
0:11:47 empirical any any evidence is imperfect
0:11:49 because the way you're the way your
0:11:51 consumer evidence proving Henry the
0:11:53 eighth you could argue yeah what is it
0:11:56 so the primary sources like these
0:11:58 diaries and this and that and then of
0:12:00 course it's a group of no it's not okay
0:12:02 you can you can go home this is like a
0:12:06 supercool testimony testimony is not
0:12:08 never tell you eyes let me tell you one
0:12:10 person is yeah okay you might not know
0:12:17 okay empiricism for me for the whole
0:12:20 time let me tell you okay that's that's
0:12:24 why I said empiricism is something which
0:12:27 relies upon your five senses in order to
0:12:29 ask acetate information okay
0:12:31 everything in essence that you consume
0:12:33 is a is is a as a result of one of your
0:12:36 five senses or a combination of them so
0:12:39 when you're coming to a conclusion of
0:12:40 something right almost anything that you
0:12:43 come to a conclusion about is going to
0:12:45 be as a result of seeing something
0:12:46 hearing something you're touching
0:12:48 something feeling something or whatever
0:12:49 very broad and gravely okay so in
0:12:52 history you can't have evidences unless
0:12:54 you unless you interact with them in one
0:12:56 of those five ways therefore history is
0:12:59 as empirical
0:13:01 as fire okay fine if you don't accept
0:13:04 that see the difference okay I've just
0:13:06 told you how I've defined it now if you
0:13:08 don't accept this it's fine you can go
0:13:10 home we can both do our studies or
0:13:11 whatever that's fine no problem yeah
0:13:13 I'll see your point of view will
0:13:14 different no problem no problem
0:13:17 if someone sees if not right now
0:13:19 I see something all right happening and
0:13:23 then 20 or 30 years from now someone
0:13:25 asks me what happened I have felt that
0:13:28 situation happen firsthand and I'm then
0:13:31 gonna narrate it it'll become testimony
0:13:33 but it starts off as being empirical
0:13:35 okay well that's another waste empirical
0:13:37 proof sure let's see we're in court this
0:13:42 guy says you saw me do so I see in both
0:13:51 cases the testimony if you want to say
0:14:01 that that's fine I've just explained to
0:14:02 you how a tree I've just explained how
0:14:04 it is once again we different
0:14:06 no problem we can look up the definition
0:14:07 what is the person so what is it person
0:14:11 if you don't get your phone out because
0:14:12 you're talking about it read out what in
0:14:13 person is do you want someone to get
0:14:15 somebody else to do it if someone else
0:14:17 can do it
0:14:17 yeah gather definition of empiricism so
0:14:20 we can understand what I mean by it I'm
0:14:22 saying generally speaking all of those
0:14:24 Sciences far away yeah generally Chekov
0:14:26 are we speaking Jin generals because
0:14:28 everything is in general so it's all we
0:14:30 can find you can find exceptions to
0:14:32 almost every you specify what I'm saying
0:14:34 is it'll come out Henry the 8th that's a
0:14:35 very specific it's more moreover Social
0:14:38 Sciences by their very nature attempt to
0:14:40 mimic the Natural Sciences you know that
0:14:42 sometimes very badly that's that's good
0:14:45 fine okay but that eulogy is not an
0:14:46 empirical boom
0:14:47 that's why then okay but it doesn't say
0:14:53 it doesn't follow exactly this it's cool
0:14:54 like you definitely have your own
0:14:55 definition with it alright let's see
0:14:57 what is in person with
0:15:04 okay okay so what you've just read oh
0:15:37 please yeah you've just read out because
0:15:40 I don't mind being wrong here
0:15:42 I don't mind however I said - I said -
0:15:48 you know very listen carefully we don't
0:15:55 need to prove anything like intelligence
0:15:59 words - all I it's on camera Jen I'm
0:16:02 saying I said what is in person
0:16:04 something which relies on that five
0:16:05 senses you get me so here you've read
0:16:07 the definition and it's agree on that
0:16:09 so okay fine - say that authoritative
0:16:11 source isn't empirical because you don't
0:16:14 what you're saying is kind of like
0:16:15 anyone would not agree with it anyone
0:16:18 who understands CDs to disagree you
0:16:21 don't have to be arrogant on this this
0:16:24 is not something which you need to
0:16:25 disagree okay stubborn you don't need to
0:16:32 be stubborn on this you don't need to
0:16:33 you just read the abstract five senses
0:16:35 the sense we experience same thing what
0:16:38 state should we pursue this
0:16:45 [Music]
0:17:05 [Music]
0:17:16 [Music]
0:17:52 as used in science is look at the tree
0:17:55 we're all looking at the same trees
0:17:58 looking at the same groups that's what
0:18:03 you're talking about that sensor we can
0:18:04 all share the same source the import
0:18:10 history which is supposed to be it's
0:18:12 never that this is always different
0:18:14 sources at the old misinformed and
0:18:16 telling me there's one still did you
0:18:19 know why you're missing a failure was a
0:18:20 function know that history is built ok
0:18:22 they're indifferent what's your
0:18:23 background what are we study
0:18:25 studied a lot tell me what you've said
0:18:27 it film okay so this is not your field
0:18:31 it is not I'm sorry this is not your
0:18:33 field in me let me just say some yeah
0:18:35 there so I think so now is this gonna
0:18:37 have to become an educational experience
0:18:41 what film consists done this many times
0:18:46 people misinterpret what I've studied
0:18:48 film is very much what we're talking
0:18:50 about
0:18:50 okay it's very much sociological okay I
0:18:53 understand that ma'am but this is these
0:18:54 are these are empiricism as I've stated
0:19:02 it it's quite it's quite easily
0:19:05 Google abhi never use that whatever is
0:19:08 Google okay yeah that it seems you've
0:19:10 got like your G is very different okay
0:19:17 sit down before we proceed everyone
0:19:19 knows that not that what you've said is
0:19:21 correct it's different the usage is
0:19:22 different but the method is the same so
0:19:24 you're still using your sensors to come
0:19:25 to conclusions of something you're using
0:19:27 someone else's selfie okay fine so it's
0:19:31 still something else is fine no problem
0:19:32 yeah it's someone else's brain yes
0:19:40 couple not really going by what I'm
0:19:42 saying I'll say what you want to say go
0:19:43 on if I look at the tree and I tell you
0:19:46 though it's a certain way like you
0:19:48 observed the tree have you observed
0:19:51 about me what I was talking about
0:19:53 looking over there I'm looking at this
0:19:55 tree here I'm a tree Sciences okay no
0:19:58 see this tree is for 8 grooves
0:20:00 eight-foot rounds and you're not you're
0:20:02 just hearing me have you seen the tree
0:20:04 have you observed the true what you're
0:20:06 saying that yeah have you observed the
0:20:07 tree what in that analogy you just gave
0:20:09 I can't see you no you can't see you
0:20:11 looking oh yes I haven't nothing do you
0:20:13 have any empirical evidence yeah your
0:20:15 testimony no yeah that's cool because I
0:20:17 observed it okay okay fine in a
0:20:19 scientific way that's cool I take my
0:20:22 word for it we're both fellow scientists
0:20:23 in his historical search the same thing
0:20:26 not the same thing of course it's a same
0:20:27 thing it's not the same thing okay let
0:20:29 the people decide okay fine
0:20:32 same thing about the thing is same thing
0:20:33 applies look now say something right I
0:20:37 recommend that you read a book is really
0:20:38 interesting very small it's a good
0:20:41 introduction to these things because it
0:20:42 will help help you understand these
0:20:44 themes and also the people that are
0:20:45 watching at home they found the sign it
0:20:46 seems it's a small book written by a guy
0:20:48 called Sameer or Kasia called the
0:20:50 introduction to the philosophy of
0:20:52 science yeah this book is actually it
0:20:55 talks about a prism in the first couple
0:20:57 of chapters and it's interesting the way
0:20:58 it puts it yeah the way the guy puts it
0:21:01 is what I'm gonna put it to you now the
0:21:04 observable reality for example like
0:21:05 you've got a voice yeah da foz if you
0:21:07 have a fuzzy he drop you drop it then we
0:21:10 can all observe the fact that you'll
0:21:11 smash on the floor okay
0:21:13 that's empiricism isn't it yeah okay
0:21:16 would you agree that's empiricism yeah
0:21:17 would you agree that scientific yes all
0:21:20 right now the way you said it is that
0:21:22 you were given the example of different
0:21:23 sociological outcomes you said okay but
0:21:25 these people have this death toll and
0:21:29 this right listen carefully so here what
0:21:32 he says is yeah we can all see the vast
0:21:35 falling onto the floor but different
0:21:38 scientists have had historically
0:21:39 different explanations of how it falls
0:21:41 on the floor for example Newtonian to
0:21:44 mind Newtonian physics versus Einstein
0:21:46 in physics so both of those are two
0:21:48 approaches that aim to explain how the
0:21:50 vast for a fell on the floor yet both of
0:21:53 them depend upon the same empirical
0:21:55 count the same thing applies in
0:21:57 sociology right
0:21:58 I'm not saying by the way that sociology
0:22:00 or any of the Social Sciences have the
0:22:02 same merit or the same kind they are in
0:22:06 the same level as
0:22:08 the naturals I'm not saying that but why
0:22:10 I'm saying
0:22:12 interestingly and I don't want to make
0:22:14 this into a too much a philosophical
0:22:16 conversation right but what I am saying
0:22:19 to you is interestingly science is
0:22:21 premise on the social sciences science
0:22:24 is primitive yeah let me tell you how
0:22:27 because natural sciences have presuppose
0:22:30 a methodological presuppositions like
0:22:32 for example empiricism like for example
0:22:34 logical deduction ISM like for example
0:22:37 the fact that we're sending that the
0:22:39 scientific method or logical approach
0:22:41 itself these things are not scientific
0:22:43 in their nature they're actually so
0:22:45 there are philosophical their
0:22:46 philosophical precepts falsification ISM
0:22:48 call papa who died in 1994 all of those
0:22:51 things and he actually used to lecture
0:22:53 and LSE University
0:22:55 all of those things are actually for the
0:22:56 Safa core precepts which underpin the
0:22:59 study of science did you get me so from
0:23:02 that perspective you could say the
0:23:03 social sciences in this case philosophy
0:23:06 supersedes or presupposes the Natural
0:23:08 Sciences so it does matter also matters
0:23:12 okay
0:23:12 it matters in that way but the two are
0:23:14 qualitatively different okay so what
0:23:17 difference doesn't it doesn't indicate
0:23:18 advantage all the time right so for
0:23:21 example if we're saying that if we do
0:23:24 agree on the definition of Imperium of
0:23:27 empiricism and empiricism isn't all
0:23:29 these things which I would you know I
0:23:31 don't think many people would agree that
0:23:32 history history is incurable
0:23:34 but the Mikasa Caliphate if we did the
0:23:36 qualitative differences between the
0:23:38 property purses are required by each is
0:23:40 so different okay okay fine fine see
0:23:45 that now I think I'm happy with what
0:23:47 you've said there because it seems like
0:23:48 you've matured in your approach to be
0:23:49 honest with you I don't you feel like
0:23:51 look okay Marilyn look whatever you want
0:23:54 to call it bro I'm here I'm not trying
0:23:56 to be rude to you forget it I'm just
0:23:58 speaking to you okay I look once again I
0:24:00 genuinely do apologize if you take
0:24:02 anything rudely I'm not trying to be
0:24:03 rude here honestly I'm not trying to
0:24:05 Rudy do you accept my apology do you
0:24:07 accept it yeah sure
0:24:09 all right so let me let me proceed yeah
0:24:11 so now because these actually it's
0:24:14 important things that we fetched out
0:24:15 here we've talked about in prism it
0:24:17 talked about testimony we talk somewhat
0:24:19 about deduction ISM and we talk somewhat
0:24:21 about look like the logical approach and
0:24:22 the important roof here is this is that
0:24:25 we're coming to to true standards
0:24:27 because if a sailor for example I
0:24:29 believe that those of initiator of the
0:24:31 universe and the way I come to that
0:24:34 conclusion and that I believe that there
0:24:36 was an initiative the universe and that
0:24:37 the Quran is the final message sent to
0:24:40 all human beings I'm a Muslim and you
0:24:43 asked me why did you come to that
0:24:44 conclusion I will say to you in a
0:24:46 nutshell bro I come to that conclusion
0:24:49 for a similar reason why you come to
0:24:51 most of your conclusions in life like
0:24:53 inference is coming to is using evidence
0:24:56 to come to a conclusion
0:24:57 if you look at Google what inference
0:24:59 means I probably should Oxford
0:25:00 Dictionary is going to describe it in
0:25:02 this way yeah so my inference to the
0:25:04 best explanation as to why we're here
0:25:06 and what we're doing here is that in a
0:25:08 nutshell bro we're here because there
0:25:10 was an initiator creates a maintainer of
0:25:12 the universe put us into existence and
0:25:15 gave us purpose death through both
0:25:19 intrinsic methods and extraneous methods
0:25:22 so hey these are the few things I
0:25:24 believe and this conviction I have it's
0:25:27 not cool of belief because some people
0:25:28 would just jump up and down what belief
0:25:30 this conviction I have is premised on
0:25:32 the same methods that me and you use in
0:25:35 normal everyday life so I will say to
0:25:40 you instead of ask and going through
0:25:41 their arguments because everyone here
0:25:43 has heard the cosmological argument okay
0:25:45 you've had it you're an educated guy do
0:25:48 you get me not honest I do I do believe
0:25:49 you're an educated guy I'm not just
0:25:50 saying that because you because the
0:25:51 theme sure I'm telling you bro it wasn't
0:25:55 to do with you what you were saying cuz
0:25:57 I from beginning to end saw you as okay
0:25:59 this guy's he's informed yeah but it was
0:26:02 just about your approach to it I felt
0:26:05 like you had your defenses up a little
0:26:06 bit that's why I'm environment sure like
0:26:07 your emotional intelligence than your
0:26:09 government but I don't even believe that
0:26:10 exists too much anyways having said the
0:26:14 server
0:26:15 yeah cause we don't have all right so
0:26:18 what was gonna say to you what was this
0:26:22 generally speaking I'm gonna ask you I'm
0:26:28 gonna tell you the narrative in in 20 or
0:26:30 30 seconds and ask you why you don't
0:26:32 agree with it
0:26:32 yeah the now it's the Islamic narrative
0:26:35 is as follows I'm not sure what
0:26:37 background you come from you're not
0:26:38 Muslim right so this so okay this will
0:26:40 make sense the Islamic narrative is that
0:26:42 the universe came into existence through
0:26:44 the will and power of God of this
0:26:48 creator of this entity of this initiator
0:26:51 yeah that only always existed he was the
0:26:53 first and will always exist he is the
0:26:56 last right he put the universe into
0:26:58 existence
0:26:59 he put human beings into the universe
0:27:01 and he ascribed the purpose to the human
0:27:03 being okay by giving them a mission in
0:27:07 life that mission is to worship Him to
0:27:10 submit to his codes and his will to his
0:27:12 laws if you will just like everything
0:27:14 else in life is submitting to his laws
0:27:15 just like there's laws of physics if you
0:27:17 will there's there is natural laws there
0:27:20 are also sociological laws there are
0:27:23 also social laws to get what I'm saying
0:27:26 from that perspective Darren we believe
0:27:29 that this initiator this maintainer this
0:27:31 sustainer we call God colloquially right
0:27:35 God then gave each of the messengers the
0:27:40 same message these messengers are human
0:27:42 beings that were born just like every
0:27:44 other human being except for the Jesus
0:27:45 and Adam they were born just like all
0:27:48 human beings and those individuals came
0:27:51 to their people respect to peoples and
0:27:53 times and places to tell them to
0:27:55 basically worship God and to submit to
0:27:57 as well and do good to your fellow man
0:28:00 with the exact with the exemption of the
0:28:02 final messenger all of the messengers
0:28:04 were sent to their respective times
0:28:06 people's to preach their communities
0:28:09 the final messenger who believe is from
0:28:12 Muhammad was differentiated in the end
0:28:14 so much as he was sent for all of
0:28:16 humankind do you go I mean now this is
0:28:22 meant to resonate with you I mean
0:28:25 frankly we believe in something called
0:28:26 the Fatah Fatah is the pre pre
0:28:28 disposition I mean you are
0:28:29 psychologically according to some thesis
0:28:31 predisposed to to submit to a higher
0:28:34 authority anyways a higher power are we
0:28:37 went to recognize this authority
0:28:38 intrinsically axiomatically Amasya so I
0:28:41 would say to you if this doesn't
0:28:44 resonate with you it doesn't first of
0:28:45 all does this resonate with you and if
0:28:46 it doesn't what flaws or problems you
0:28:50 see in here such that it is such that
0:28:54 you're not willing to take that first
0:28:55 step in order to potentially be one of
0:28:59 those members or people that follow the
0:29:01 prophets if I have to admit there's a
0:29:14 lot of stake
0:29:16 there's a lot of stairs literally
0:29:18 reasonable exist more so from your side
0:29:20 than my so just take a little convenient
0:29:23 thing that makes sense
0:29:25 explore more than that to prove life in
0:29:28 the position we don't buy it but if you
0:29:35 say that you don't buy it now you have
0:29:38 to justify it specifically because I'm
0:29:41 saying that justification yeah no of
0:29:44 course not yeah I don't mean it like
0:29:46 that I mean you have to justify it
0:29:49 epistemic lease oh wow so we said
0:29:53 already we discuss we discussed like
0:29:54 standards of truth it seems like what
0:29:56 you are saying is that in terms of
0:29:57 samples of truth a bunch of stinks when
0:30:00 you ask me why do you exist why does
0:30:02 everything ever in in existence exists
0:30:05 you know I'm gonna be deep okay so is
0:30:10 the process at which you become
0:30:11 convinced I was gonna say to you and
0:30:14 that's not enough to convince you know
0:30:16 he was wrong with it it's not enough to
0:30:18 convince you okay attention historical
0:30:23 issue something that you might have
0:30:24 looked at you must apply your skepticism
0:30:27 [ __ ] her right in the [ __ ] so basically
0:30:37 you must be higher
0:30:44 [Music]
0:30:47 oh you were saying taking a so-called
0:30:49 contentious because imagine you've
0:30:51 looked at some in history and it's quite
0:30:54 contentious but you really want to
0:30:56 figure it out you want to apply quite
0:31:02 standards the way that you go about this
0:31:04 you have rigorous and in rigorous
0:31:15 skepticism and requirements you know
0:31:25 what you said about you being one son
0:31:27 yeah let's take that as an example which
0:31:28 is interesting you know the Koran says
0:31:30 I'm full of cumin very shy in them only
0:31:32 a MooMoo Harlequin where they created
0:31:36 from nothing or where they themselves
0:31:37 the creators of themselves chapter 52
0:31:40 verse 35 yeah it's quite an interesting
0:31:44 thing to think about if you think about
0:31:47 not only your own existence but the
0:31:49 existence of the universe in general
0:31:50 right I'm Julio call me Nevada Shane
0:31:52 what they created from nothing because
0:31:55 you got to think about all of the
0:31:56 alternatives here theological
0:31:58 alternatives yeah if we say that okay
0:32:00 this thing called God doesn't exist and
0:32:03 we're all just here as a matter of right
0:32:06 not even a random generation we came
0:32:07 from nothing I never said I'm not saying
0:32:09 you to say sorry by the way I never said
0:32:12 that you said that and let me make that
0:32:13 clear right you never said that the
0:32:15 question is what options you really have
0:32:17 right because yeah so the quran says i'm
0:32:21 hulu coalition I'm Huell holophone I'm
0:32:24 Holocaust on my watch allowed balor you
0:32:25 can own what they created from nothing
0:32:27 so your first option is that the
0:32:30 universe or you came into existence
0:32:32 generally from nothing yes
0:32:34 I'm home we'll Holly horn did you create
0:32:37 yourself you know that that can't be the
0:32:39 case because it would assume existence
0:32:40 and non-existence at the same time the
0:32:43 same thing applies for the universe
0:32:44 right I'm Holocaust am i with you a lot
0:32:47 did you go and create the universe
0:32:48 obviously you didn't right could you say
0:32:50 that something in the universe created
0:32:51 the universe you can't say that right so
0:32:53 but let your kid own the only thing I
0:32:56 can think of that an atheist will say is
0:32:58 that the universe always was it was
0:32:59 always in Korea it was always there in
0:33:02 which case we could have a discussion
0:33:03 about contingency or they could say they
0:33:06 were multiple universes but then again
0:33:07 there will be an infinite amount of
0:33:09 universes all of which would
0:33:10 regressively go backwards which would
0:33:12 which would we need have one universe
0:33:14 I'd have to start everything up the
0:33:15 question is how do you explain existence
0:33:17 when all of the atheistic models seem to
0:33:21 be completely out of line with that
0:33:23 which is your approach which is which is
0:33:26 really a testimonial approach a logical
0:33:28 approach or empirical approach it's all
0:33:30 of those things around the window with
0:33:31 atheism yeah there's actually no
0:33:33 deduction ISM no induction ISM no
0:33:37 empiricism no inference that you can
0:33:39 make that will make atheism a tenable
0:33:42 option for a rational actor I agree yeah
0:33:44 from that perspective you're you're
0:33:46 actually forced in a sense compelled to
0:33:49 steer towards the theistic alternative
0:33:52 and if you are forced towards a theistic
0:33:54 alternative the question is when you
0:33:56 realize that God is does exist and the
0:33:58 universe is in existence and we are in
0:34:01 the universe as actors rational actors
0:34:03 what we're doing here and why are we
0:34:05 here and the question is what narrative
0:34:07 what meta-narrative better explains our
0:34:10 existence than the one I gave you a for
0:34:13 a for hand no so why don't you just
0:34:16 accept it according this is now this is
0:34:19 this is what is really about you gave me
0:34:20 a list of conditions and mr. on all
0:34:22 these possible ways that we might exist
0:34:31 give me something else happening okay
0:35:00 yeah was happening in the Alaska region
0:35:24 we just don't know
0:35:52 their coping mechanism is to say I'm
0:35:59 done okay times use logic and Russian to
0:36:04 try to come to the most menial
0:36:06 convenient way of explaining things now
0:36:09 the truth is grow them in impatient
0:36:14 true ok the [ __ ] with that and I
0:36:20 personally believe that the biggest
0:36:22 question of all is certainly not the one
0:36:24 we know you know what I'm saying I mean
0:36:26 it seems that that's a cop-out though to
0:36:28 be honest with you like don't even know
0:36:35 my state of political affairs in the
0:36:40 Northwest region of Mongolia thousand
0:36:43 years ago if you can't tell me something
0:36:45 that's no cific reach and how'd you
0:36:49 state to tell me how we came into
0:36:51 existence
0:36:51 scientists certainly quite you had the
0:36:53 people we had a big Empire at that time
0:36:55 you had the start of we don't know and I
0:37:01 believe that this is I'm not saying
0:37:03 you're right it's a cop car I believe
0:37:05 it's a cop-out because look you're right
0:37:07 that I'm not making the argument that we
0:37:09 know everything that's not what you're
0:37:11 doing now is called a straw man the file
0:37:13 it is straw my fellas right because what
0:37:15 yeah it's because I've not made the
0:37:18 argument that we you've got two
0:37:19 presuppositions right one of your
0:37:21 presuppositions is that you need to know
0:37:23 all knowledge in order to come to
0:37:25 conclusions about our beginnings forces
0:37:28 no no because you might have
0:37:31 misunderstood me I'm not saying we will
0:37:33 know once we know everything okay so
0:37:35 things we don't we won't know okay so I
0:37:38 agreed what's that got to do with
0:37:39 anything
0:37:41 what's that got to do getting of the
0:37:44 universe and how do you believe that
0:37:47 there's some things we'll never know
0:37:48 yeah okay yeah yeah I do I never said
0:37:52 that Oh once we know everything then
0:37:53 we'll know it that would that would
0:37:54 conclude that I believe everything is
0:37:56 knowable I never claimed so what what's
0:37:59 that got to do with the discussion of
0:38:01 our beginnings and why we're here and
0:38:02 believe that it might be one of those
0:38:04 that we'll never know how can you prove
0:38:06 that I don't need to prove that ok so
0:38:09 then so what how is this relevant to our
0:38:11 discussion I think that's entirely
0:38:13 relevant so you're saying this ok look
0:38:21 you wouldn't accept this for let me tell
0:38:23 you let me give you an easy example
0:38:24 right because it seems like once again
0:38:27 and this is why Q I end up having to
0:38:29 accuse I'm not saying you're atheist and
0:38:32 like whatever your background is
0:38:35 whatever your background is but people
0:38:36 with your kind of arguments I accused
0:38:38 them of always having different
0:38:39 standards of proof so when it comes to
0:38:41 all the other sciences in life they have
0:38:43 certain standards which are very clearly
0:38:45 defined as testimony empiricism
0:38:47 reductionism induction ISM abduction ISM
0:38:50 whatever you want to call it what a
0:38:51 probabilistic reasoning all of these
0:38:54 things are all employable in all
0:38:56 Sciences but when it comes to theology
0:38:57 they're thrown they're thrown out now
0:39:00 what I'm saying is this when we were
0:39:02 saying you're saying oh you might not
0:39:05 know it which is very much I cannot
0:39:06 think a kind of approach here what I'm
0:39:08 saying is this if you read if you want
0:39:10 to call and someone done really
0:39:12 something bad to you to see a child or
0:39:13 something I was saying never happened
0:39:15 someone who's raped for child then and
0:39:16 it was like ten cameras on them and you
0:39:18 had to in order to come to a conclusion
0:39:20 on it you have to kind of review the
0:39:22 evidence you reviewed evidence and then
0:39:24 some and the judge comes out and says
0:39:25 you know what after reviewing the
0:39:26 evidence is we know we have some
0:39:30 information but we don't have all the
0:39:31 information therefore we can't really
0:39:33 take this person and punish that person
0:39:35 do you know what I'm saying it wouldn't
0:39:38 be something you would accept so once
0:39:39 again your standard of truth if you were
0:39:41 to really employ it where counts for you
0:39:44 emotionally and psychologically and in
0:39:46 your life you you wouldn't allow you to
0:39:48 call it injustice right so the same way
0:39:51 I say to you look if your standards of
0:39:54 truth are such that you've just
0:39:56 mentioned the ones that you just meant
0:39:57 all we just gone gone through and I've
0:39:59 given you this kind of outline which
0:40:01 fits that sounded of truth why not
0:40:03 accept the sound of truth
0:40:05 I think once again you've misunderstood
0:40:06 it because take the court analogy there
0:40:11 there may have been a way of finding it
0:40:13 about about all the facts and therefore
0:40:15 coming to a conclusion about what
0:40:16 actually happens I'm saying that this is
0:40:20 not the case as many things that we
0:40:22 won't know they think they cannot be
0:40:23 known in within our scope so that's why
0:40:28 I believe okay I believe I have to
0:40:30 verify that oh I think I mean because
0:40:33 you've agreed yeah I thought so
0:40:37 so when I say oh well this is one of the
0:40:39 things that I believe we'll never know I
0:40:41 certainly have a problem even though you
0:40:42 know but you have no reason you have no
0:40:45 reason to that's the point so a nagging
0:40:47 also say we can never know or we can say
0:40:50 we I will never know in the first person
0:40:51 I will never know what happened right
0:40:53 and I'll say do you know that you will
0:40:57 never know me I never see how it's very
0:41:03 just especially first I tell you why
0:41:05 it's better than afterwards I'm asking
0:41:07 you do you know that you'll never know
0:41:08 no how do you okay so why make the
0:41:10 provided me the point because I've been
0:41:11 playing the same principle to that no
0:41:13 but if you wanna if you wanna plant
0:41:15 there ever know if I know
0:41:16 come on it listen carefully right if
0:41:19 your if your if your belief is that okay
0:41:22 this whole thing is that you never know
0:41:24 right and now obviously your result of
0:41:26 your experience in your knowledge that
0:41:28 you've acquired in let's say twenty
0:41:29 eight years I'm guessing you 28 years
0:41:30 old I'm all right
0:41:34 you said it was in my thirties earlier
0:41:36 no I said may be redeemed just so okay I
0:41:39 like your jacket would you get a
0:41:41 technical mother ASOS it's nice man I
0:41:43 like the long ones you know yeah anyways
0:41:45 I was gonna say to you was you don't
0:41:50 know that you'll never know to get it
0:41:55 yeah so from that perspective you can't
0:41:59 make that argument because that argument
0:42:00 is contingent yeah that argument is
0:42:03 contingent on your current state of
0:42:05 affairs your necessity or you may
0:42:08 require personally
0:42:10 and need to know that you know I
0:42:12 personally don't work I don't qualify my
0:42:15 believe you know what I'm saying I'm
0:42:18 just saying that you said you said we
0:42:19 don't know yeah yes and you said with
0:42:22 this with this theological thing which
0:42:24 is the universe coming into existence
0:42:26 the last having a purpose here that we
0:42:28 will never know yeah I never said that
0:42:32 okay that we level of certainty
0:42:35 okay so we'll never know so what do you
0:42:37 think it may be one of those things
0:42:39 we'll never know okay because right now
0:42:41 I believe we don't know okay if we don't
0:42:44 know we should say I don't know what
0:42:50 you're what you're doing is you're
0:42:51 generalizing human knowledge and see
0:42:54 large gaps so how do you how do you know
0:42:56 that I don't know because you said we so
0:42:59 we is that nice is a collective pronoun
0:43:01 a belief that if you want not is a
0:43:02 collective pronoun like but I believe
0:43:06 that we don't know you don't know I
0:43:08 believe that we don't know okay hello
0:43:23 we'll get some food office over here you
0:43:26 tell me where you get the jacket we just
0:43:27 we just see he didn't he didn't pursue
0:43:30 it to the end
0:43:30 okay well Joanna says if you want to say
0:43:33 anything so it's late yeah if you're
0:43:35 saying if it to me I'm next I'm next
0:43:37 yeah it's been put in pleasure ma'am
0:43:38 I'll give you mine over a to you guys
0:43:42 make sure you subscribe to all these
0:43:44 respective channels except for constant
0:43:45 over everything except for cuz they
0:43:50 already subscribe brother
0:43:58 is that one day so we're gonna jet
0:44:14 [Music]