Al Ghazali and the Impossibility of an Infinite Regress | Mohammed Hijab (2022-10-15) #

0:00:00 oh
0:00:06 foreign
0:00:12 session uh in the first session we
0:00:15 talked about some of the crude oil
0:00:16 developments in the second session we
0:00:18 spoke about some of the opinions
0:00:20 philosophical opinions of urban time now
0:00:22 we were able to contrast them with some
0:00:25 of those opinions of the philosophers in
0:00:27 particular have been seen and others
0:00:29 and today we're going to be looking at
0:00:31 who needs no introduction at all I mean
0:00:34 this scholar is potentially one of the
0:00:38 You could argue I'm not going to say the
0:00:40 most obviously because we've got you
0:00:42 know the Companions and the Tevin and so
0:00:44 on but in his era he's certainly the
0:00:46 biggest scholar is error and one of the
0:00:49 biggest Scholars of Islam
0:00:52 uh why because Ali
0:00:55 was an individual who was mutafening he
0:00:58 was an individual who was able to put
0:00:59 his hands in more than one
0:01:02 subject matter and he was able to master
0:01:05 more than one subject matter
0:01:07 for example as we mentioned before he
0:01:09 wrote a Mustafa which is a book on which
0:01:14 can be argued to be the most important
0:01:15 book there is could be argued
0:01:19 and he also wrote extensively as you
0:01:22 guys know more than me
0:01:24 and he was authoritative in Chef Isaac
0:01:27 you know a master of Chef Eiffel maybe
0:01:31 not obviously as same level as you know
0:01:33 and now real
0:01:34 I'm right here right
0:01:36 now really yeah okay okay well I know we
0:01:41 the chef has to go back to him for the
0:01:43 more Timbers and stuff right so but
0:01:44 certainly his his ability to extrapolate
0:01:46 was on the same level as the big the big
0:01:48 guys there
0:01:50 so he was thick as well and then
0:01:52 obviously which is secrete
0:01:57 and then you had uh obviously and this
0:01:59 is something which
0:02:06 or whatever you want to call it which is
0:02:08 the idea of purification and here alone
0:02:12 redeem is probably the most compendious
0:02:14 and the most famous spiritual textbook
0:02:17 in all of Islam
0:02:20 um I don't think there's anything like
0:02:21 it and
0:02:23 I'll be honest with you some I've seen
0:02:25 some
0:02:26 recently of some salafis of uh Yani
0:02:30 dealt with it in a certain way because
0:02:31 there are some weak hadiths and whatever
0:02:33 they've taken out these Hadith so that
0:02:35 even there's a selfie friendly any
0:02:37 version of it if you like and I think
0:02:39 it's a great shame
0:02:41 for people who maybe Yani feel fearful
0:02:46 to indulge in the works of Kalam not to
0:02:49 to uh of not to explore this janip
0:02:53 because he really yeah you can see that
0:02:55 he's going into very
0:02:57 deep experiential detail from his own
0:03:00 experience and stuff like that and in
0:03:02 fact a lot of his cutoff hair around the
0:03:04 dean has been translated into English
0:03:07 and um
0:03:09 like there's books that you can buy
0:03:13 uh obviously it's it's a big collection
0:03:16 but for example The Book of Love
0:03:20 The Book of accountability
0:03:23 very nice little things and I've
0:03:24 mentioned before I think the best in
0:03:26 terms of from my experience and
0:03:28 obviously people can recommend in the
0:03:30 comments section or you guys can
0:03:30 recommend to me
0:03:32 uh where I was recommended
0:03:35 at the beginning of guidance
0:03:38 hidayah
0:03:42 which is a very nice introductory book
0:03:45 when I first read it and it's been
0:03:46 translated into English as well how
0:03:48 would you beginning of guidance is in
0:03:49 English yeah
0:03:50 uh when I first read it it really put me
0:03:52 in my place because he has this tone
0:03:54 where it's not too assertive
0:03:56 but it's assertive enough to put you in
0:03:58 your place like he's just laying out the
0:04:00 facts
0:04:01 it's not as you think it's like people
0:04:03 when they associate spirituality they
0:04:04 think a spiritual textbook is a it's a
0:04:07 textbook that speaks you know in a way
0:04:09 which someone's on on some kind of drug
0:04:11 would speak like hey someone's high or
0:04:13 something no but he's speaking in a way
0:04:15 which is quite discipline orientated way
0:04:18 he's teaching you how to discipline
0:04:19 yourself on a daily basis and how to fix
0:04:22 your intentions and these kinds of
0:04:23 things so if someone wants a handy
0:04:25 introduction to al-hazali and from a
0:04:28 spiritual perspective I think this is a
0:04:30 place to start and then go to a head on
0:04:31 alumudin and start with these cut up the
0:04:34 small ones and I've been translating
0:04:35 into English like
0:04:37 these kinds of books
0:04:40 and so on
0:04:43 um in terms of Scholars in the in the
0:04:46 Western World I think I've mentioned to
0:04:47 him to you before
0:04:49 um
0:04:50 uh Frank griffel is probably the best
0:04:51 one that has dealt with of Azale like
0:04:54 and he's got books on him and stuff like
0:04:55 that
0:04:56 today we're going to be focusing on
0:04:58 al-hazali's arguments against Infinity
0:05:03 okay now this is
0:05:05 there's two arguments I would say are
0:05:06 the most important uh in terms of unique
0:05:09 contribution
0:05:11 uh
0:05:13 uh of the school in particular number
0:05:16 one is this arguments against infinity
0:05:18 and the second one is taxis or
0:05:20 particularization
0:05:22 one book I would recommend which I think
0:05:24 is probably the best one I've read in
0:05:25 English language
0:05:26 is a book called proof proofs of
0:05:28 Eternity by Herbert Davidson how about
0:05:31 Davidson was a Jew but he was fluent in
0:05:33 the Arabic language and Hebrew language
0:05:34 and I personally feel like that book was
0:05:37 probably the best treatment in the
0:05:39 English language of these kinds of
0:05:41 arguments
0:05:42 but it's an advanced book like so you'd
0:05:45 have to kind of have
0:05:46 some level of understanding of what's
0:05:47 going on but it's that is probably the
0:05:49 go-to if someone wants to have like a
0:05:51 overview synoptic overview of like which
0:05:54 each thinker thought about these proofs
0:05:56 of Eternity about
0:05:58 um eternity and proofs of God's
0:06:00 existence this is probably the best book
0:06:02 you know so um
0:06:05 it's important to start by saying that
0:06:09 I wrote many books
0:06:11 and on philosophy but the one we're
0:06:13 going to be focusing on today or there's
0:06:15 a few but the the main one is
0:06:19 translated into the incurrence of the
0:06:21 philosophers which has been translated
0:06:22 into English language
0:06:24 in it he he offers arguments against IBN
0:06:27 Cena who was an eternalist now before I
0:06:30 continue what did IBN Cena believe about
0:06:33 the universe
0:06:35 and
0:06:36 eternality
0:06:38 who knows
0:06:43 okay and what how did he articulate that
0:06:46 do you remember
0:06:47 exactly how he argued for it yeah or how
0:06:50 what what were the kinds of analogies
0:06:52 that he put forward if you remember it
0:06:54 was um the emanation theory yes okay he
0:06:57 spoke about uh but he spoke about Allah
0:07:00 as like the sun and then the universe as
0:07:02 its race yeah even when the sun is dead
0:07:04 in the race okay exactly and this would
0:07:07 indicate I mean let's let's use this
0:07:08 very analogy right if you have the Sun
0:07:11 and then you have the rose of the Sun
0:07:13 does the sun choose to emanate his race
0:07:16 and no it doesn't so what has even seen
0:07:18 a belief about Allah's will
0:07:20 so that was that was the problem that he
0:07:22 did he basically took away the the will
0:07:25 of Allah yeah yeah he didn't believe God
0:07:27 had a will like that yeah so this is
0:07:29 actually very dangerous it's it's like
0:07:31 you know uh an important because these
0:07:33 are the two points emanationism
0:07:36 eternalistic emanation isn't number one
0:07:39 and number two the fact that God doesn't
0:07:41 have a world will that attacked
0:07:46 famously attacked IBN Cena for and it
0:07:49 was such a famous attack
0:07:50 that um like if you're into reading
0:07:53 humanism books and stuff like that
0:07:54 you'll see like for example
0:07:56 is like and this has already been
0:08:00 refuted like in relation to these kinds
0:08:02 of theories and one can refer to the
0:08:04 Great
0:08:07 and so and I've said this before and
0:08:09 I'll say it again because of the
0:08:11 atmosphere that we're living in the the
0:08:13 attitude that is had
0:08:16 even the most polemical of them was very
0:08:19 respectful
0:08:21 could that be hot gentle Islam called
0:08:23 him the proof of Islam
0:08:25 you know like even
0:08:27 tamiah and so on
0:08:30 so we'll start with
0:08:34 we'll start with what uh what's even
0:08:36 Cena thought so he said as you mentioned
0:08:38 that God is like God is eternal God is
0:08:41 necessary
0:08:42 yeah God is eternal God is necessary and
0:08:45 whatever comes from him is also
0:08:46 necessary and whatever comes from him
0:08:48 doesn't come from him through will but
0:08:50 it comes from him through necessity
0:08:52 and even seen also believed that
0:08:57 um you will see they believe that so
0:08:58 therefore God doesn't have a will
0:09:00 yeah
0:09:01 uh he he also says something else which
0:09:03 is quite odd
0:09:05 which is that since God is one
0:09:07 only only things which only singular
0:09:10 things can come from God
0:09:13 I'm not sure if you've heard of this
0:09:15 before or
0:09:16 he believed that because God is one
0:09:19 multiplicitous things cannot emerge from
0:09:21 him only singular things
0:09:24 because you can because something but
0:09:26 after equality cannot can't produce it
0:09:29 did you see the point
0:09:31 obviously that if we're talking about
0:09:33 the will of God if Will if God has the
0:09:35 will and the power to do something and
0:09:38 creation we can argue against it so the
0:09:40 only way you can argue against
0:09:42 this kind of theory is through taxis and
0:09:45 through establishing the will of God so
0:09:47 this shows you the how important it is
0:09:49 to establish the will of God
0:09:53 so the first thing that
0:09:55 that IBN Cena
0:09:58 he kind of
0:10:00 um obviously IBN Cena comes before he
0:10:02 has no chance to respond
0:10:05 but
0:10:07 there is a problem here and I'll tell
0:10:09 you what the problem is and it's a very
0:10:10 uh yanny I don't want to go into too
0:10:12 much detail but the problem is this is
0:10:14 that if you say God is eternal
0:10:18 that means his will is eternal
0:10:21 and if you if you say God's will is
0:10:24 eternal
0:10:25 then
0:10:26 he would always have to he would always
0:10:28 have to choose whatever he has chosen
0:10:30 what let's start defining certain things
0:10:33 right
0:10:35 what is Choice what is irada
0:10:39 okay great so you have a choice of two
0:10:42 or more things and you choose one over
0:10:43 the other
0:10:44 and in Arabic sometimes it's called what
0:10:47 we use it
0:10:49 they say
0:10:51 you know some some uh
0:10:54 yeah yeah some Scholars they like
0:10:55 nowadays especially if they don't follow
0:10:57 mother they'll say this this whole this
0:11:00 this opinion is this and this opinion
0:11:01 and this and the true opinion is one two
0:11:04 three and the guy hasn't learned Arabic
0:11:06 letters yet and he's saying the true
0:11:08 opinion is this and is that no problem
0:11:10 uh so Raja means the approved decision
0:11:14 basically
0:11:16 so it is the choice that is made one
0:11:18 over the other A over B
0:11:22 so the issue is
0:11:23 if you have an eternal god with an
0:11:27 eternal will and that a will is
0:11:29 always Eternal that must mean the choice
0:11:32 is always eternal
0:11:36 he responds and he says but that's not
0:11:40 necessarily so
0:11:41 why because you can put God can post
0:11:44 date something
0:11:46 God has the or the will
0:11:48 has the ability to post date something
0:11:51 one over the other so for example and he
0:11:53 gives this example of the marriage
0:11:57 if I say to you and this is actually
0:11:59 true if I say to my wife if you step
0:12:01 foot outside of the house you're
0:12:02 divorced
0:12:03 literally if she steps foot outside of
0:12:05 the house then she'll become divorced
0:12:07 she just has to stay in the house or she
0:12:09 has to decide why Annie what she wants
0:12:10 to do
0:12:11 if she wants to leave she's a divorced
0:12:13 and she's in the Annie but he he uses
0:12:15 this example of the conditional divorce
0:12:18 or whatever and he says well God can do
0:12:22 the same thing yeah and he can have a
0:12:24 will and then he can post date that will
0:12:25 to a particular time
0:12:29 so that's one thing
0:12:32 there is there are issues here though as
0:12:33 you can probably think I'm probably
0:12:35 thinking now
0:12:36 which is that if you do say what do you
0:12:39 now we have to reinvent what we mean by
0:12:42 God having an eternal will
0:12:44 like what does that mean
0:12:46 that's why uh
0:12:49 he famously said
0:12:51 he said that I think
0:12:55 one of the two yeah he famously said
0:12:58 that
0:13:00 you always have three issues
0:13:02 and you will not be able to solve what
0:13:06 Yeah Yeah by solving one you make the
0:13:08 other one becomes a problem
0:13:10 one of them is
0:13:13 the other one is
0:13:15 and the third one is uh
0:13:18 I think yeah so there's three things
0:13:21 which I'll tell you what they are hello
0:13:23 how this is the idea that God doesn't
0:13:25 change
0:13:27 and you'll be surprised but razi
0:13:29 actually admits
0:13:30 there is no um and he's a ashari there's
0:13:34 no matter that is deplete from some idea
0:13:36 of
0:13:41 now this might be a shock to somebody
0:13:43 some people
0:13:45 so how can God changes no we're not
0:13:47 saying God changes we're saying that
0:13:49 there is some kind of renewal of God or
0:13:52 some yeah and that's what they mean by
0:13:54 that's what for example I even tell me
0:13:55 at all he's very clear about it every
0:13:57 time he believes in this he calls it
0:14:01 renewal in the essence of God
0:14:04 but I wouldn't tell me it goes quite far
0:14:05 in this compared to the Chinese who are
0:14:07 very conservative with this in fact they
0:14:09 reject it outright
0:14:11 is the idea of an infinite regress
0:14:15 and uh is this idea that I've just
0:14:18 touched you and now approving one
0:14:19 decision over the other
0:14:20 so let me explain why these three things
0:14:23 are intention with analama
0:14:26 number one actually let me ask you why
0:14:28 do you think these three things are
0:14:29 intentional
0:14:31 why do you think that if you solve one
0:14:32 of them the other one becomes somewhat
0:14:33 of a problem
0:14:37 hmm
0:14:38 yes so well for the god-changing issue
0:14:42 if God let's call it let's call it uh
0:14:45 renewal renewal yeah sorry all right
0:14:47 um
0:14:48 they might say that anything that renews
0:14:50 itself is uh contingent yeah and
0:14:53 therefore created okay right however we
0:14:55 understand from the Quran Sunnah that
0:14:56 Allah it doesn't change yeah so it's
0:14:58 kind of hard to reconcile between these
0:15:00 two things okay what in particular have
0:15:02 we just spoken about which needs to
0:15:04 change in order for it to be efficacious
0:15:06 the will of God right because if you
0:15:07 don't have if you don't have a change in
0:15:09 the will of God you don't have a will
0:15:10 being effective
0:15:13 why is that part of the problem not
0:15:15 solved by the first thing pardon why is
0:15:17 that problem not solved by the post
0:15:19 dating if you post date the will or if
0:15:21 like
0:15:22 examples say that like a
0:15:25 like in eternity Allah world that this
0:15:28 thing would happen this way this thing
0:15:29 would happen in that way yeah and that's
0:15:31 how that shows will solve it
0:15:33 is that's yeah that's how hazali solves
0:15:35 it that's the attempts to solve it like
0:15:37 that that's his that's his way of trying
0:15:39 to solve it that works yeah
0:15:41 it really depends on your articulation
0:15:44 of it like we have to go back
0:15:46 to
0:15:48 what we mean by eternity
0:15:51 and this and what do you mean by
0:15:53 identity yeah oh yeah sorry yeah
0:15:55 does all of this mean that
0:15:57 time does apply to good yeah no that's a
0:16:01 good question because what is time first
0:16:03 of all yeah so yeah because the whole if
0:16:06 we're talking about eternity we must
0:16:07 first talk about what what
0:16:10 time because
0:16:12 eternity is an expression of what time
0:16:15 actually defines time
0:16:17 and time is defined in physics
0:16:21 who knows
0:16:23 yeah distance over speed yeah so time is
0:16:26 distance over speed
0:16:28 T divided by S yeah
0:16:31 he says that time is movement
0:16:35 okay and this is true because time is
0:16:37 movement because if everything stayed
0:16:39 still there would be no time
0:16:43 and that's why even Tamia says time
0:16:45 doesn't actually exist in the real world
0:16:46 obviously he doesn't believe in the cool
0:16:48 yet and Frank griffel actually says and
0:16:52 I have to look at this and and assess it
0:16:54 but Frank griffel does actually mention
0:16:56 that he thinks that hazali has anomalous
0:16:59 position as well
0:17:01 and there are some that seem
0:17:03 contradictory and I don't know what is
0:17:05 the I need to get some more information
0:17:07 but grifol's opinion is that razali had
0:17:10 this same opinion
0:17:12 has the same opinion which is that time
0:17:14 doesn't exist like an entity
0:17:17 then when we talk about eternity here
0:17:19 we're not talking about something which
0:17:22 can be expressed in the real world
0:17:24 we are talking about the expression of
0:17:26 movement
0:17:28 but then we get to what gazali is saying
0:17:31 here
0:17:32 and this is why he's he's at his attack
0:17:35 on Infinity is so important because
0:17:37 razali's whole point is this that you
0:17:39 cannot have
0:17:40 this is definitely his belief you cannot
0:17:43 have movement going on forever into the
0:17:46 past
0:17:48 do you see the point
0:17:50 you cannot have it it's he it's not
0:17:52 something possible now I'm going to
0:17:54 explain to you
0:17:55 why
0:17:57 he says this
0:18:01 he takes from there are people of the
0:18:03 past like Jonah Philippines and uh
0:18:06 genocides I don't have to pronounce his
0:18:08 name this is Jewish medievalist they had
0:18:11 this uh these theories and these
0:18:13 arguments that they would put forward
0:18:14 before that you had the whole Xeno I'm
0:18:16 sure you've heard of Xena's Paradox if
0:18:18 you remember
0:18:20 who who can articulate it
0:18:24 yes
0:18:28 a string which is infinitely long
0:18:31 it has no like Middle Point so basically
0:18:33 like an arrow but let's just say let's
0:18:36 use another example here you've got
0:18:38 point a and point B point a and point B
0:18:41 yeah
0:18:42 now in in reality if you keep halfing
0:18:45 halfing half and halfing you can do this
0:18:47 at Infinity
0:18:50 so Zeno is asking how can if there's an
0:18:53 infinite amount of
0:18:54 if there's an infinite amount of points
0:18:56 from point A to point B
0:18:58 the question is how can you Traverse
0:19:00 this
0:19:01 Aristotle says
0:19:03 I mean he brings about this idea of an
0:19:05 actual infinite versus a potential
0:19:07 infinite
0:19:09 Zeno because he doesn't know how to
0:19:12 solve the problem
0:19:13 yeah that's why he calls it a paradox he
0:19:16 says actually the fact that you can
0:19:18 Traverse point A to point B this is all
0:19:20 this whole thing is illusory
0:19:22 Yani there is no actually there's
0:19:23 actually no traversing going on here we
0:19:26 just assume it's like an optical
0:19:27 illusion almost
0:19:29 our soul says no actually this is not an
0:19:31 optical illusion and that there is an
0:19:33 actual traversing going on from 0.0 A to
0:19:35 point B and you're confusing an actual
0:19:38 infinite with a potential infinite
0:19:40 from this line of reasoning agrees in
0:19:43 many senses with Aristotle
0:19:46 and al-ghazali is saying that an actual
0:19:48 Infinity cannot exist in the real world
0:19:52 and he brings forward arguments to prove
0:19:55 this point
0:19:56 one such argument is the rotating
0:19:58 planet's argument
0:20:00 he says look imagine if you have an
0:20:02 infinite universe or sorry an eternal
0:20:04 Universe yeah if you have an eternal
0:20:06 universe and the planets are rotating
0:20:08 within them within the universe
0:20:11 that would let's say for example you
0:20:13 have two planets you have Saturn and you
0:20:15 have the Sun
0:20:17 he's giving these like as example he
0:20:19 actually uses this example he says the
0:20:21 sun let's say it takes 30 years to to
0:20:24 orbit itself or whatever yeah
0:20:27 pardon
0:20:30 yeah I know I know but he he uses the
0:20:32 sun I know his son's not funny whatever
0:20:33 you know and
0:20:35 then Saturn as well this guy's coming in
0:20:37 with Massachusetts there
0:20:42 okay
0:20:44 and I know you're a pilot you know
0:20:45 obviously you know you know more about
0:20:47 you know the the as at the end all the
0:20:50 skills
0:20:53 the atmosphere have you have you have
0:20:56 you have you taken off recently or
0:20:58 something like that
0:21:00 oh okay
0:21:02 you'd be blown to smithereens
0:21:04 if that happened but I was going to say
0:21:06 is that he says the sun yeah it goes
0:21:09 it's one revolution it's 30 years and
0:21:11 Saturn let's say it's one year but if
0:21:13 it's an eternal universe
0:21:15 and you'll be you you'll be you have to
0:21:18 say that there's as many Revolutions of
0:21:19 the Sun as there is of the of Saturn
0:21:23 start from the same plane well it
0:21:25 doesn't start from any point that's the
0:21:26 whole point yeah so because in the south
0:21:28 of any point
0:21:30 you see
0:21:33 do you get what he's saying here on does
0:21:35 everyone understand it shall I repeat
0:21:37 this point
0:21:38 let's let's make it one and two just for
0:21:40 the sake of argument Imagine One Planet
0:21:42 it orbits itself for one year in the
0:21:44 oven orbits itself in two years
0:21:47 so if I were to ask you how many you got
0:21:49 Planet a and Planet B
0:21:50 how many times has Planet 8 always
0:21:52 orbited itself you would say infinite
0:21:56 times how many times has Planet B
0:21:58 orbited itself infinite times how could
0:22:00 be the same when the revolutions are
0:22:01 different
0:22:03 he's saying that's a contradiction here
0:22:05 that is a contradiction
0:22:07 and this is very difficult contradiction
0:22:08 to try and resolve
0:22:12 and that's why John philopolis he speaks
0:22:15 of bigger and smaller Infinities okay so
0:22:18 you cannot have bigger and smaller
0:22:19 infinities
0:22:20 you cannot have bigger and smaller
0:22:22 infinities
0:22:24 and that's the general principle
0:22:25 anything susceptible to additional
0:22:27 subtraction is finite
0:22:29 because what is infinity I mean the
0:22:31 definition of infinity is something
0:22:32 which is boundless
0:22:34 that has no beginning and has no end
0:22:36 that's what Infinity means
0:22:38 but then how can you add to Infinity
0:22:41 and so
0:22:43 Philippines he says that a past
0:22:46 uh past events cannot be possible
0:22:50 infinitely because the past would not be
0:22:53 completed and the future would never
0:22:55 have reached its its place
0:22:58 so in other words if there was an
0:22:59 Infinity into the past we would never
0:23:02 get to where we are now
0:23:04 and additionally he would say well how
0:23:07 can you be adding on to so for example
0:23:08 if we if we assume that such a thing as
0:23:10 pre-eternity
0:23:11 how can we be adding on to the infinity
0:23:15 he says this whole thing is a
0:23:16 contradiction
0:23:18 and I'm sure you guys have heard of
0:23:20 these uh analogies that we know let's
0:23:23 say for example I'm about to write
0:23:24 something here on on this piece of paper
0:23:28 but before I do so
0:23:31 I have to ask I'm at the end then he has
0:23:33 to check and the answer you know
0:23:36 and then it goes on forever
0:23:39 would I ever write anything on the paper
0:23:41 no
0:23:43 and likewise he says
0:23:45 if it was true that there was a past
0:23:47 Infinity
0:23:48 the universe wouldn't have started
0:23:51 would not there would be no Inception of
0:23:53 the universe there would be no big bang
0:23:54 let's put it in cosmological terms now
0:23:56 obviously
0:23:59 if someone believes in the Big Bang this
0:24:00 is a very good way of arguing
0:24:03 because what happened before that and
0:24:04 then this infinite regress I'm sure
0:24:06 everyone's heard of it and William Lane
0:24:08 Craig has made a whole career out of it
0:24:12 you know and he's written his first book
0:24:14 the cosmological arguments and stuff
0:24:16 like that and he uses examples like
0:24:18 David Hilbert's uh Hotel example
0:24:21 you've got you've got imagine you've got
0:24:22 a hotel with an infinite amount of
0:24:23 people inside
0:24:24 yeah let's just imagine this I think
0:24:27 this he stole it from our Sally because
0:24:28 he as we saw yeah because he definitely
0:24:31 stole this from gazali actually I don't
0:24:33 know why he didn't give him credit
0:24:34 because Ali
0:24:36 I spoke about the infinite solar
0:24:37 infinite souls he literally used this
0:24:40 example of infinite salt so Hilbert used
0:24:42 the same example but I forget about
0:24:43 souls with bodies as well and put them
0:24:45 in a hotel he modernized the example but
0:24:47 it's the same example it's the one razal
0:24:49 used David Hilbert is if you don't know
0:24:51 he's one of the biggest mathematicians
0:24:52 in the 20th century
0:24:54 and it should also be said that there
0:24:56 was some resistance that some some
0:24:58 mathematicians did believe in an actual
0:25:01 Infinity that could exist in real world
0:25:02 but then if we talk about the real world
0:25:04 here why is math got to do with it
0:25:05 because Master's not really talking
0:25:07 about the real world does it anyway
0:25:09 to be honest with you
0:25:11 but as I was saying if he says I mean
0:25:14 David Hilbert said if you've got a hotel
0:25:15 with an infinite amount of people inside
0:25:16 of it and then you add one more what did
0:25:19 you have infinity plus one but the
0:25:21 proposition of infinity plus one is a
0:25:22 contradictory one
0:25:25 so this is the this is the basic
0:25:27 argument I'm sure you've heard uh it
0:25:30 before
0:25:31 even take me as you guys know we spoke
0:25:33 about it last time at the time he didn't
0:25:35 accept this actually
0:25:38 he believed that God can be
0:25:40 uh creating infinitely into the past
0:25:43 because Allah
0:25:45 and in fact he'd done a whole Hadith by
0:25:48 I'm not even Hussain
0:25:49 which is kind of lower
0:25:52 that Allah was there and nothing was
0:25:54 with him and his Ash was on the water
0:25:57 and he says that well if Allah was the
0:25:58 ash was in the water that shows you that
0:26:00 there was something with Allah
0:26:02 but he's hermeneutically yeah in in
0:26:05 reality
0:26:07 he's he is he's doing hermeneutics here
0:26:10 and if we're being honest we can't
0:26:13 actually easily find a quail of the
0:26:15 salaf from a theological perspective
0:26:17 which indicate the beginningness of the
0:26:19 universe and or the beginnings of the
0:26:22 world and the first creation
0:26:24 you have a quite a vulnerable himself
0:26:27 saying
0:26:29 the first thing that was created was the
0:26:31 pen like all you have to do really is
0:26:33 you have to you know
0:26:35 look at uh
0:26:39 you know these two verses and look at
0:26:41 the tafsir of it and you'll see so many
0:26:43 different uh akola salaf and you can
0:26:45 check up that's not it's none of it
0:26:47 which they believe
0:26:49 the beginning of the universe or
0:26:50 something or the beginning of the world
0:26:52 what what and there's this the dispute
0:26:54 mentions is that the artist that was the
0:26:56 beginning
0:26:57 was it the water first was it the pen
0:27:00 but this indicates that there was
0:27:02 something first yeah
0:27:03 so theologically
0:27:05 even tell me it doesn't really seem to
0:27:07 have a robust case to be honest with you
0:27:10 and Asha seemed to be more correct here
0:27:12 in terms of at least believing that the
0:27:13 Universe had a beginning creation X nilo
0:27:16 uh
0:27:18 it certainly seemed to be theologically
0:27:20 more correct
0:27:21 let's have a discussion let's say
0:27:24 logically now
0:27:25 do you think it would take me as view of
0:27:28 how this letter
0:27:30 makes sense compared to this these kinds
0:27:33 of arguments and how do you think
0:27:35 an argument can be made against this
0:27:36 kind of Infinity but before I ask you
0:27:38 this question I'll say one thing
0:27:39 ebuntamia says that just like in the he
0:27:42 says this is how he builds his argument
0:27:46 he says look and he was answering by the
0:27:49 way
0:27:50 as he does
0:27:52 and he was saying uh because arazi puts
0:27:54 forward the same argument puts forward
0:27:56 the same argument with a
0:27:58 I think
0:28:00 or something like that yeah with some
0:28:03 coins I remember the and it would take
0:28:05 me to attacks it
0:28:06 and it wasn't really very robust effect
0:28:08 he said I can't remember it's like you
0:28:10 know joining says if you have one coin
0:28:13 and then before I'm not gonna Annie
0:28:15 whatever but it would take me to Texas
0:28:16 yeah
0:28:19 do you guys believe in heaven
0:28:22 and in heaven you're going to have you
0:28:24 know you know you're going to have
0:28:26 um
0:28:28 uh the only Everlasting whatever and you
0:28:32 can have as much of whatever you like
0:28:36 Francis
0:28:46 that is food is continuous perpetual and
0:28:50 so is this shade for example
0:28:52 so how do we
0:28:54 he says if it's if it's conceivable he
0:28:57 would say mistake if it is conceivable
0:28:59 that in the future you can have a
0:29:02 things
0:29:04 like this in the future
0:29:06 Eternal things why not in the past
0:29:08 now note here with the big Asterix
0:29:12 even Tamia does not believe in the
0:29:14 infinite regress of causes
0:29:16 he says
0:29:19 with the
0:29:21 consensus of all rational beings this is
0:29:23 impossible
0:29:24 he believes in infinite
0:29:26 amount of things and that Allah is the
0:29:29 creator of each one directly
0:29:32 what are you can talk to the person next
0:29:35 to you what are the pros and cons the
0:29:36 strengths and the weaknesses what are
0:29:38 you most convinced
0:29:39 with are you convinced more with Ali
0:29:42 this might be a controversial here or
0:29:44 ubuntamia or maybe even CNN I hope no
0:29:48 one says that because this is
0:29:51 and and I will say I mean obviously I
0:29:55 mentioned last time
0:29:58 he excommunicated even Cena on through
0:30:01 on foregrounds there's actually three
0:30:02 only three Grands one of them is that do
0:30:05 you remember what the reasons were and
0:30:06 therefore the philosopher
0:30:09 yes
0:30:11 you know why he believed that by the way
0:30:15 what was that
0:30:16 uh the one can only come from one okay
0:30:20 yeah it's related to that it is related
0:30:22 to that yeah but I don't know that yeah
0:30:25 so this idea of an all-knowing God that
0:30:27 knows all the particulars and stuff is
0:30:29 he doesn't believe in that by the way
0:30:32 some of the things that he believes
0:30:33 you'll be shocked even Cena
0:30:35 uh the second thing was what
0:30:38 which is what we're talking about
0:30:46 of the world yeah and the third reason
0:30:50 huh
0:30:51 I've been seeing this and believe that
0:30:53 when everyone's Resurrected
0:30:56 that the bodies will be resurrected as
0:30:57 well which I think was a was a
0:30:59 was a position held by one of the
0:31:01 Heretics up north called
0:31:04 uh he calls himself I think he took this
0:31:07 position but obviously he would be made
0:31:09 up by the likes of ghazali
0:31:11 on that on that basis
0:31:13 anyway these yes
0:31:20 in particular
0:31:22 yeah because remember he doesn't he he
0:31:24 almost has a classical theistic a
0:31:26 picture of God he doesn't have this
0:31:27 personal God or like with you can't have
0:31:30 a personal god without will Danny yeah
0:31:33 yeah you don't have will God is just
0:31:35 emanating he's just emanating things
0:31:38 and it's connected to his idea of
0:31:39 privation by the way and we can go into
0:31:41 this later on as he had a very strange
0:31:43 theodicy
0:31:45 but was interesting though
0:31:47 yeah yeah and he believed for example
0:31:49 what is a good thing and what is a bad
0:31:51 thing
0:31:51 yeah but do you know what he said about
0:31:53 that even Cedar said a bad thing is that
0:31:56 which doesn't perform as function good
0:31:58 not like that's even taking me a more
0:32:00 acquaintances even take me uh Augustine
0:32:02 the absence of course God's good and and
0:32:04 he gives out good for for even seeing
0:32:07 that is that the emanation has not been
0:32:09 like for example if we take the Sun and
0:32:11 uh and raise example it's like it's not
0:32:14 a perfect rate it hasn't come out
0:32:15 perfectly
0:32:16 so it's a deformed substance
0:32:18 [Laughter]
0:32:20 no but there is a proximity of this view
0:32:22 with you the only difference is that
0:32:25 yeah it maintains us it's best for the
0:32:27 Sith what's a huge difference obviously
0:32:29 and even sooner does not do that
0:32:31 so for example for it for even Cena a
0:32:33 knife which is blunt is a bad knife
0:32:39 no I I
0:32:41 don't think I don't know
0:32:44 say again
0:32:46 I think functionally yeah it's a good
0:32:48 question does he believe in platonic
0:32:50 forms exist in some
0:32:52 I don't know I have to check this I have
0:32:54 to I have to think about that
0:32:56 yeah but now the question I wanted to
0:32:58 ask what are you most convinced with of
0:33:00 the three views because we have look
0:33:02 think about let's put a let's do a
0:33:03 tasjid yeah let's do um a logical what's
0:33:06 the word called um this juncture yeah
0:33:10 so this what are the possibilities the
0:33:13 universe could have been eternal
0:33:15 the universe could have
0:33:16 had a beginning
0:33:18 and there could have been an infinite
0:33:19 amount of universes
0:33:21 this fourth idea that the Universe came
0:33:23 from nothing is No One Believes in it
0:33:25 even Krauss who wrote This Book says in
0:33:28 the bin somewhere or maybe in the in the
0:33:31 toilet roll or something that created it
0:33:33 but even he
0:33:35 he admits it's not nothing Annie he
0:33:37 admits that so this idea that something
0:33:39 comes from nothing it's a nonsense idea
0:33:40 like it's it's not worth entertaining
0:33:43 this honestly it's no one has said this
0:33:45 like I want to know if there's holistic
0:33:47 philosophers if anyone's an expert on um
0:33:50 holistic philosophy if anyone actually
0:33:51 believed that and if they did how badly
0:33:54 they would have been refuted man because
0:33:55 this is like complete it's definitely
0:33:57 not one of the main schools
0:33:59 there's no way Annie yeah so and all the
0:34:03 way up to the medieval times and all the
0:34:04 way up to the Enlightenment and the
0:34:05 Renaissance and all the way up to our
0:34:06 present day and yeah I have not come
0:34:08 across a serious work that people talk
0:34:11 about something coming up from nothing
0:34:12 or the universe coming from nothing so
0:34:14 when you when you do it huh
0:34:17 well he tried to evade this point you
0:34:19 know he tried to say well I didn't say
0:34:20 and I said and I didn't say and then he
0:34:22 went with William Lane Craig and he said
0:34:23 that and he got laughter and
0:34:24 [Laughter]
0:34:27 but yeah the idea of something come from
0:34:29 nothing forget it
0:34:32 it's so upset that Allah just asked the
0:34:34 question he didn't even make it as a
0:34:35 point he didn't even refute it he just
0:34:37 asked the question like just to show you
0:34:38 how ridiculous you are
0:34:40 he didn't even get his subhanallah were
0:34:41 you crazy from nothing
0:34:43 so you so if you think about the three
0:34:45 models
0:34:46 one is the Eternal Universe model pros
0:34:49 and cons weaknesses and strengths and
0:34:51 we're looking at it just logically here
0:34:52 we're not looking at it theologically
0:34:53 and there's an importance it's important
0:34:56 that we do our clan
0:34:58 because we don't believe that there is a
0:35:00 contradiction anyway
0:35:01 but if we're speaking to an atheist
0:35:04 we need to be able to elaborate the
0:35:06 matter in a way which is uh which is in
0:35:09 line with their Muslim as even Tamia
0:35:11 said so um these three models
0:35:14 I want you to speak to the person next
0:35:15 year for the next five ten minutes what
0:35:17 are the strengths or weaknesses of each
0:35:19 and uh Yani which one are you completely
0:35:22 convinced with or most convinced with
0:35:23 and which one are you not convinced with
0:35:25 and we'll yeah okay guys uh you've had
0:35:28 some time to liberate and to assess and
0:35:30 to evaluate so um the three options that
0:35:33 we had which are the three options that
0:35:36 uh were out there and they need to be
0:35:38 differentiated because some people
0:35:40 actually don't know that however which
0:35:43 is the position of a pentamia was not
0:35:45 the same as kidama Island
0:35:47 this is this is a major misconception
0:35:49 especially within some ashady circles
0:35:51 and so on they think it's too the same
0:35:53 thing and they're not they're not the
0:35:55 major differences is well first of all
0:35:56 what is the major difference between the
0:35:57 two Notions
0:36:00 but what is the difference between
0:36:01 Hawaii
0:36:02 speaks about
0:36:05 foreign yes
0:36:09 yeah you have a creation that is in
0:36:13 existence alongside Allah from the from
0:36:15 uh pre-eternity right and with the
0:36:18 Hawaii
0:36:19 you have every single thing is is
0:36:22 created in a particular time and place
0:36:24 yeah so that's the difference
0:36:26 yeah that's the major difference and
0:36:29 it's created by whom Allah okay so what
0:36:32 are the strengths and weaknesses of each
0:36:34 of the three uh things let's start with
0:36:36 the idea that you can have an infinite
0:36:38 regress let's start with even taking the
0:36:39 idea right that you can have an infinite
0:36:40 rigors of things
0:36:42 but Allah created each one directly what
0:36:44 are the strengths and weaknesses of this
0:36:45 Theory just from a logical perspective
0:36:47 not looking at the theology for now
0:36:52 yeah
0:36:53 um we were talking about how logically I
0:36:56 guess you could say it's a it makes
0:36:58 sense nothing no individuals creating
0:37:00 exists eternally but
0:37:02 it's uh
0:37:05 created things were being created
0:37:07 eternally into the past logically that
0:37:08 makes sense
0:37:10 what we're talking about whether that
0:37:12 there is like some closet occasionism
0:37:15 potentially here but like because if you
0:37:18 say that because he he wants to say that
0:37:20 there's things going infinitely into the
0:37:21 past but he can't say that as an
0:37:23 infinite there's infinite causation
0:37:25 because that's impossible that's that's
0:37:27 an interesting point so you're saying
0:37:29 that ebuntamia's view is
0:37:31 anti-occasionalist when it comes to the
0:37:32 cone this world
0:37:34 uh and occasionalism just Define it
0:37:36 quickly
0:37:37 uh that there's no uh was it primary
0:37:40 causation
0:37:42 so occasionalism is that God like if you
0:37:45 think have you ever seen these kind of
0:37:46 old uh like uh Cinemas have you seen the
0:37:51 earth pictures what's it called
0:37:53 you guys are into these things
0:37:56 yeah the film the film type thing yeah
0:37:58 like one one the light was like it's
0:38:00 like a bunch of pictures yeah very very
0:38:02 quickly yeah what's that called well I
0:38:04 don't know whatever that is yeah
0:38:06 so each one is not causing the other one
0:38:08 yeah like you let's let's say you got
0:38:10 that and you got Dominoes Dominoes one
0:38:12 is pushing over to the other yeah
0:38:14 the tape thing is that you've got all
0:38:16 these pictures that are being shown but
0:38:18 they're being projected from one source
0:38:21 which The Dominoes is that each one is
0:38:23 knocking the other one down yeah so even
0:38:25 10 years you can't say that one is
0:38:27 causing the other and that's infinite
0:38:28 he's clear about that it's not he's
0:38:31 clear about that you cannot have
0:38:32 infinite causation
0:38:34 so the only thing left to do is for him
0:38:36 to say that God created things
0:38:37 independently but that's almost you're
0:38:40 saying like taking the ashari position
0:38:42 which is uh the idea that you have
0:38:45 direct causation and obviously they have
0:38:47 Casper and all that stuff we've spoken
0:38:49 about in other sessions
0:38:51 so it's almost repudiating his own
0:38:53 criticism of the asharis but it's he's
0:38:55 changing the context and he's allowing
0:38:57 something to happen where she does not
0:38:58 allow him to come
0:39:00 I think that's a that's a that's an
0:39:01 interesting point of consideration yeah
0:39:05 guys in a very interesting point of
0:39:07 consideration what else would you say
0:39:10 um if you think that this infant uh
0:39:13 infant uh creations and God created in
0:39:16 them it seems to be seems to be
0:39:19 contradictory because uh if God created
0:39:21 them then God was a cause and the
0:39:23 Creations were the effect and uh by
0:39:26 definition unless you believe like
0:39:27 reverse causality uh the effect must
0:39:30 come before the effect must come after
0:39:31 the cause uh so an infinite number of
0:39:35 things versus an infinite cause I don't
0:39:37 think would make sense in that sense
0:39:39 he would he would say that it goes
0:39:41 continuously doing that because he's
0:39:43 Eternal God is eternal so he's
0:39:45 perpetually creating
0:39:58 give us some examples of
0:40:01 what kind of arguments he we said that
0:40:03 he would use
0:40:07 what examples did we go through like
0:40:08 that that we just went through now
0:40:11 yeah yeah
0:40:12 you know when you said um God is
0:40:15 creating perpetually into the past yes
0:40:17 right he's creating things yes so they
0:40:22 must have you know with this argument
0:40:24 that there must have been a first thing
0:40:26 you know he even say me would say there
0:40:28 wasn't right
0:40:30 would say there must have been the first
0:40:33 thing that's what the tension is
0:40:37 and the reason why he say there would be
0:40:39 there has to be a first thing what was
0:40:40 what would we just cover now what kind
0:40:42 of arguments would they say
0:40:44 like the planet's argument so what can
0:40:46 you elaborate there
0:40:48 we articulate the planet argument yeah
0:40:50 for example
0:40:52 is that um if you assume that you have
0:40:54 Planet a and Planet B and Planet A's
0:40:56 orbit is one year Planet B's orbit is
0:40:58 two years if there's an infinite amount
0:41:00 of time into the past then if you're
0:41:01 able to ask how many rotations each of
0:41:03 those planets have done then the answer
0:41:05 would be the same which would be
0:41:06 infinite and it's impossible because we
0:41:07 know that the rotations are different so
0:41:10 the whole question is is I guess from
0:41:12 the resilient standpoint is you can't
0:41:13 have an infinite regressor uh so you
0:41:16 can't have an actually infinite number
0:41:18 of things okay this is uh very important
0:41:21 let me tell you the principle and just
0:41:22 remember this yeah
0:41:26 is basically saying this anything
0:41:29 susceptible to addition cannot be
0:41:33 infinite
0:41:36 anything susceptible to addition cannot
0:41:39 be infinite
0:41:41 and if you're saying there's an infinite
0:41:43 past and we're adding to it that's a
0:41:46 contradiction
0:41:48 because of infinity
0:41:50 is something which is boundless and has
0:41:52 no beginning no end and you're adding to
0:41:54 it
0:41:55 then you must reinvent what it means to
0:41:57 be infinite for you to have your cake
0:41:59 and eat it both
0:42:00 and this is a very powerful argument
0:42:05 yeah like by time going forward
0:42:08 at the moment time is going forward yes
0:42:10 so because time is going forward there
0:42:12 can't be uh an infinite regress of time
0:42:15 beautiful that's exactly what he would
0:42:17 say right okay that's exactly right he
0:42:19 said if if time is increasing now
0:42:22 then how can time increase how can you
0:42:25 increase something which is already
0:42:26 infinite
0:42:28 which something infinite means it has no
0:42:31 increase it has no potential to increase
0:42:33 so put it this way if Infinity means
0:42:36 something has no potential for increase
0:42:39 and you're saying it's increasing that's
0:42:41 a contradiction
0:42:42 how can you how can you say something
0:42:45 has no potential for increase
0:42:47 yet it's being increased
0:42:50 would say this is a nonsense
0:42:53 like how does it maintain your defined
0:42:55 creations and we spoke about this one
0:42:56 time
0:42:58 yeah it's a good question how does
0:42:59 everyone saying we Define creation
0:43:02 it talks about Ayan a creation is not
0:43:06 changing something
0:43:08 into something it's not any crafting
0:43:11 something from something else is
0:43:13 creating something
0:43:15 uh in its sign form it's a raw Essence
0:43:18 form which is why he had this big issue
0:43:21 with
0:43:22 Alchemy
0:43:24 did I mention this to you before
0:43:26 because Alchemy they say if you get if
0:43:28 you get a ton of
0:43:30 gold you cannot you can they all say you
0:43:33 can change this dilemma I'm being crude
0:43:35 here but you can change this ton of gold
0:43:37 into a ton of silver yeah
0:43:39 he said he was against it he said you
0:43:41 can't do that
0:43:42 he said how can you because and he used
0:43:45 theological principles he says you can't
0:43:46 do it because only Allah can do that
0:43:49 you cannot change the iron
0:43:52 the the essence of something
0:43:54 from one a from one thing to another
0:43:57 thing
0:44:02 permission that can happen the same way
0:44:04 Jesus blew into the clay and it became
0:44:05 about isn't that one no but it would
0:44:08 take me it has a very staunch opinion
0:44:09 against this thing
0:44:10 he's saying Allah only Allah can do that
0:44:14 that's Hulk that's the Hulk that Allah
0:44:16 can only do
0:44:18 no it's not there's no there's no ions
0:44:21 changing here it's not clear into a bird
0:44:23 no because the bird is already from clay
0:44:27 black and the bird is made from clay
0:44:29 just like human beings are made from
0:44:30 clay
0:44:31 like this put it this way
0:44:33 I'm no camera I'm no chemist yeah
0:44:35 there's about 92 elements
0:44:38 all night two elements that can be found
0:44:40 in clay can be found on a human being
0:44:43 kind of thing yeah it's the same
0:44:46 Elementary
0:44:48 uh building blocks
0:44:50 if you if you analyze it it will be the
0:44:52 same thing
0:44:55 it's not you're not changing it's one
0:44:57 raw element
0:44:59 to another
0:45:01 yep okay you have like the Stick of
0:45:03 loose and then the snake my point is if
0:45:05 if why is it hard for him
0:45:07 it's made from the same thing as a snake
0:45:09 Okay yeah he would say stuff like this
0:45:13 now you could argue it's outdated You
0:45:15 could argue what he's saying is outdated
0:45:17 yeah which one
0:45:21 he carved a camel from a mountain right
0:45:24 then the stone tend to come
0:45:26 it's a margin that's the whole point
0:45:27 right but Allah loved it yeah yeah yeah
0:45:29 yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah well that's the
0:45:31 module that is a miracle that's
0:45:32 something which shouldn't happen in the
0:45:34 using the Yanni everyday laws of nature
0:45:36 and stuff okay
0:45:42 yeah for example Allah says in the Quran
0:45:49 um
0:45:57 yeah yeah
0:45:59 so we cannot bring any Sultan except
0:46:01 with anything that the prophet comes
0:46:03 with anyways from Allah
0:46:05 but he's saying that the The Act of
0:46:08 Creation You could argue is outdated
0:46:11 but just to answer the question yeah
0:46:12 this is this is he had a view I think
0:46:14 about the view on that um a book on it
0:46:17 what about alchemy and stuff like that
0:46:20 yeah he had this whole this thing
0:46:24 we get it yeah you can screw them maybe
0:46:27 that was quantum physics you can say
0:46:29 this is
0:46:32 needs to be updated someone needs to
0:46:34 come and speak about it in different
0:46:35 terms now corks and this and that you
0:46:38 can yeah you can strings and I don't
0:46:40 know how you're gonna do it
0:46:42 but uh let's go back to the point
0:46:44 uh infinity it's it's a there was a guy
0:46:48 called democracies in uh in in holistic
0:46:51 period
0:46:52 the idea is if you keep breaking and him
0:46:54 is called atomism if you keep breaking
0:46:56 something have you heard of this
0:46:58 Okay who wants to articulate what's
0:47:00 atomism
0:47:03 I don't know
0:47:04 yeah if you keep breaking something down
0:47:06 there has to be these symbols
0:47:09 these symbols like if I have like for
0:47:12 example
0:47:13 yeah I need a rock and I keep smashing
0:47:16 it into twos smashing it into two
0:47:18 smashing into two or breaking it cutting
0:47:20 it into two whatever yeah
0:47:21 he say
0:47:23 this idea of atomism is that this there
0:47:25 is this it has to there has to be
0:47:26 something
0:47:28 simple thing which it goes down breaks
0:47:31 down to
0:47:32 and that's why this old motor kalimund
0:47:34 they call this as
0:47:37 the indivisible atom
0:47:39 the indivisible atom
0:47:41 this is the raw building blocks of
0:47:43 materials and creation and stuff like
0:47:45 that but the idea of it being going on
0:47:48 for forever would nullify this is the
0:47:52 example of um one one argument that will
0:47:55 take me was fully against would
0:47:56 nullified the existence of anything
0:48:01 how can you keep going Annie
0:48:04 so this idea of using Infinity to
0:48:07 disprove
0:48:09 oh the the impossibility of an infinite
0:48:12 regress of things is probably the most
0:48:14 powerful and used way of proving God's
0:48:17 existence
0:48:20 however I'll be honest on a practical
0:48:22 level it can be very tedious for people
0:48:24 just to hear this stuff boring actually
0:48:28 very boring
0:48:30 like Annie I've seen debates atheist
0:48:33 atheist debates that you make your
0:48:35 initial argument because
0:48:36 animated argument everything that
0:48:40 everything that has a beginning as a
0:48:42 cause
0:48:43 the universe at the beginning
0:48:47 therefore the universe had a Cause and
0:48:50 then you can't have an infinite regress
0:48:52 therefore the cause must be won the you
0:48:54 know all these kinds of things that's
0:48:55 basically the argument
0:48:57 but then because
0:48:59 there's two or three stages of the
0:49:01 argument here which are problematic Ally
0:49:03 when he says
0:49:05 it's not problematic but you'll open a
0:49:07 can of worms
0:49:09 everything that has a beginning has a
0:49:11 cause this is William Lane Craig
0:49:12 one-on-one yeah
0:49:13 everything and he took this from uh
0:49:15 would you call it
0:49:17 yeah everything as a beginning has a
0:49:21 cause what can someone say
0:49:25 the universe has no beginning the
0:49:27 universe yeah that's more the second
0:49:28 premise yeah they'll say well we don't
0:49:31 really believe in causation so there's a
0:49:33 you go to the word causation here or
0:49:35 what is causation or what about retro
0:49:37 causation all these questions yeah
0:49:38 second question the second premise
0:49:42 the universe had a beginning that that's
0:49:45 what the thought is so we don't believe
0:49:47 in it we don't believe in the Big Bang
0:49:49 nowadays people have taken you turn from
0:49:52 The Big Bang
0:49:53 I I saw recently uh I think with William
0:49:56 Lane Craig and Penrose William Lane
0:49:58 Craig used to use Roger Penrose as a way
0:50:01 to describe the fine tuning of the
0:50:03 universe Roger Penrose is seen as one of
0:50:05 the top physicists in this Century yeah
0:50:08 and he's moved from believing that the
0:50:10 Universe had a beginning The Big Bang
0:50:12 Theory to believing a kind of uh a model
0:50:16 of expansion model
0:50:19 so the issue is and this is the thing
0:50:21 William Lane Craig for example in order
0:50:23 to show the veracity of his belief
0:50:25 system or to of to save this argument he
0:50:29 the second premise is the one that gets
0:50:31 the most attack
0:50:32 so for example you now have to become a
0:50:35 scientist
0:50:35 you have to engage if you think of it
0:50:38 this way if you want to go down this
0:50:40 route you actually have to know the
0:50:42 science pretty well
0:50:43 like for example William Lane Craig
0:50:45 although his background is philosophy of
0:50:46 religion yeah if you look at his book on
0:50:49 like he's written a book I think called
0:50:51 something eternity or something like
0:50:54 that where he literally goes into the
0:50:55 science
0:50:56 he talks about a theory of relative
0:50:58 relativity and different different
0:51:00 understandings of it and he he tries to
0:51:02 prove the big bang and he's going with
0:51:04 it and he has to go
0:51:06 so here if you really want to go into
0:51:08 this line of argumentation you have to
0:51:09 be a master of
0:51:11 to be honest you should do a Physics
0:51:12 degree
0:51:13 or you should do at least half Physics
0:51:15 degree or should do something if you
0:51:17 like this argument and you want to use
0:51:19 it on the highest level you have to be a
0:51:21 good physicist a good cosmologist
0:51:23 otherwise I think you'll be lackluster
0:51:25 it'll be kind of weak it'll be shallow
0:51:27 at the very least you have to immerse
0:51:29 yourself in the literature of cosmology
0:51:33 but the issue is
0:51:35 cosmologies are changing changing signs
0:51:37 so even if you do all of that
0:51:39 and then 10 years from now 100 years
0:51:41 from now Roger Penrose or his son or
0:51:43 whoever it may be decides that you know
0:51:45 actually this redshifting that we
0:51:47 interpret in another way because as
0:51:49 we've said in many times here this is
0:51:51 where the philosophy of science becomes
0:51:52 very pertinent
0:51:54 you have you know the underdetermination
0:51:56 you have a theory of the problem of
0:51:58 induction all these things under
0:52:00 determination which is the idea that you
0:52:02 can interpret the variables in more than
0:52:03 one way
0:52:05 uh you if you this stuff is not going to
0:52:08 actually go away and especially with
0:52:10 cosmology cosmology especially with
0:52:12 quantum physics
0:52:13 this is the main reason because people
0:52:15 ask me why are you going with the other
0:52:17 like the contingency argument where
0:52:18 you're not going with this standard
0:52:20 argument this is the main reason
0:52:23 because I don't want to have to I don't
0:52:25 want to have to use a scientific theory
0:52:26 as one of the main talking points for
0:52:29 something which is meant to be timeless
0:52:32 because especially a scientific theory
0:52:34 which is already undergone
0:52:36 considerable level uh changes and has
0:52:40 been volatile there physics has been
0:52:42 certainly volatile in the last hundred
0:52:43 years
0:52:44 this is the main reason
0:52:47 everything that has a beginning has a
0:52:48 cause
0:52:49 causation you can to be honest with you
0:52:52 I feel like you can win the arguments
0:52:53 easily causation seems to be the
0:52:55 foundational thing if someone denies
0:52:57 causalization you can say whatever you
0:52:59 know you don't actually deny it you
0:53:01 like if someone tried to kill your mum
0:53:03 and then you went into the thing and you
0:53:05 said what's the probable cause it's not
0:53:07 I don't believe in causation the honor
0:53:08 yeah why did you slap here as a probable
0:53:11 cause there's no such thing causation
0:53:15 most people believe in causation as a
0:53:17 matter of fact axiomatically Yani but
0:53:20 the second premise of the of the the
0:53:21 argument you need to be really good at
0:53:23 physics and even if you are there's a
0:53:25 problem of physics changing
0:53:30 so that's where the fight is
0:53:33 there's two if you want to use razali's
0:53:35 argument by all means but you need to
0:53:37 know where the fight is
0:53:39 it's like every argument it starts off a
0:53:42 certain way
0:53:43 and then
0:53:45 the tussle happens somewhere
0:53:47 it's much easier and even take me I said
0:53:49 this in here it's much easier to speak
0:53:52 of these things he said it's going
0:53:53 around a contingency
0:53:55 it's so long he said because I'd rather
0:53:57 speak about it just in terms of Hadoop
0:54:00 he said that he agrees with the gazal in
0:54:02 many ways even though not Infinity but
0:54:03 on the idea of just starting from
0:54:06 causation Hadoop and stuff he agrees
0:54:08 with him on that
0:54:10 however as I'm saying here you're gonna
0:54:13 have to spend a lot of time justifying
0:54:14 it'll be easier for you to make the
0:54:16 argument
0:54:17 but longer for you to defend it
0:54:20 whereas with the contingency argument
0:54:22 it's longer to make the argument but
0:54:24 much easier to defend it that I know
0:54:27 that's simplistic but that's what I
0:54:28 think it is spend a little bit more time
0:54:30 laying everything out
0:54:32 and if they come if the interlocutor
0:54:33 comes and says well I actually don't and
0:54:34 this comes all about now like
0:54:36 Annie if you speak to atheists they'll
0:54:38 say well I don't know if the universe
0:54:39 did have a beginning actually because
0:54:40 they know where we're going they've
0:54:42 heard it all before
0:54:44 I don't know if the universe did have a
0:54:45 good what about the universe is
0:54:46 oscillating and it's like a balloon this
0:54:48 is like whatever
0:54:49 what if this what if that what if this
0:54:51 what if that
0:54:52 what if you know what you know but
0:54:54 you're gonna have gone to a scientific
0:54:55 discussion now nobody this and infinity
0:54:58 and
0:55:00 one thing that William Lane Craig does
0:55:02 actually do is he he actually uses the
0:55:04 infinity thing to show the universe at
0:55:05 the beginning
0:55:07 which is something you're welcome to do
0:55:09 as well it's impossible the universe was
0:55:11 always there because if it was always
0:55:12 there and use the same arguments okay so
0:55:14 in that case can we see that he's not
0:55:15 making scientific here now he's making
0:55:17 logical Theory
0:55:19 so if he's using uh the argument against
0:55:21 Infinity to show the beginning of the
0:55:23 universe could you now say that William
0:55:26 Craig is making a purely logical
0:55:27 argument yeah he does actually mention
0:55:29 that point at one point if I can't
0:55:31 remember where but he says that
0:55:34 yes he he makes both though he does
0:55:37 actually engage with the science
0:55:38 but I think maybe you could argue that
0:55:40 he's uh he's engaging with the science
0:55:41 as supplementary type of thing but he's
0:55:44 he's saying yes I'm doing this thing
0:55:46 just basically if you defeat the
0:55:48 infinite regress you have a beginning of
0:55:50 the universe
0:55:52 so you could decide to just go with this
0:55:55 but you just have to be ready
0:55:58 for all of the counteract counter
0:56:00 arguments and stuff like that I don't
0:56:02 think this is as Timeless as a
0:56:03 contingency argument and I don't think
0:56:05 it's Bulletproof
0:56:06 that's the reason why I don't use it as
0:56:07 much not because I don't believe in it
0:56:09 by the way I believe the whole thing
0:56:12 I believe nothing
0:56:14 to be honest with you I believe in the
0:56:16 whole thing but uh it's not about me
0:56:19 believing it it's about me proving it
0:56:24 I said this guy's jealous of me I
0:56:26 believe it but I can't prove it
0:56:29 you know there's lots of things we
0:56:31 believe and you know we can't prove
0:56:33 uh so that's that's that any questions
0:56:35 now before we end
0:56:37 how is before we end let me ask you guys
0:56:39 a question just to make sure how would
0:56:41 you um
0:56:43 using ways how would you how would you
0:56:46 nullify the idea of an infinite or an
0:56:48 internal universe
0:56:50 together
0:56:51 using La hazali's arguments against
0:56:54 infinite regress of things how would you
0:56:56 use that to try and nullify the idea of
0:56:58 an eternal universe
0:57:01 we just use that line you said um yes
0:57:04 anything that's uh susceptible to
0:57:06 addition cannot be infinite beautiful
0:57:08 perfect so you start with it just
0:57:10 remember that anything that's
0:57:11 susceptible to the addition cannot be
0:57:13 infinite if there's addition to the
0:57:15 universe whether it's in time whether
0:57:16 it's in space whether it's in anything
0:57:19 then it's not infinite you can say that
0:57:20 stuff yeah you can
0:57:24 yeah
0:57:25 and you can talk about you know the fact
0:57:28 that we have
0:57:29 if they believe in the Big Bang or like
0:57:31 that's a big thing
0:57:32 to be honest with you if someone says to
0:57:35 me and you might want to make a decision
0:57:37 like if someone says you have to be
0:57:38 pragmatic about this situation if
0:57:40 someone says to you I believe in The Big
0:57:42 Bang Theory I actually believe in it the
0:57:44 redshift and all that stuff
0:57:45 then this is probably the best argument
0:57:47 to use to be honest if if I how sure are
0:57:50 you of the big bang no I'm sure I'm 100
0:57:52 sure
0:57:54 okay
0:57:55 so the universe had a beginning do you
0:57:57 agree that everything that we get you
0:57:59 can say everything that has a beginning
0:58:00 has a cause and so on and make make the
0:58:02 argument so you decide look these
0:58:04 arguments are just like tools in your
0:58:06 your your back
0:58:08 sometimes you need to use a screwdriver
0:58:10 sometimes use a hammer sometimes you
0:58:11 need this one you need that one and you
0:58:13 might feel comfortable using certain
0:58:16 arguments and not other arguments you
0:58:18 might feel like you know what I just
0:58:19 feel comfortable with this argument
0:58:20 there's no right or wrong answer here
0:58:21 the contingency argument is correct this
0:58:24 argument is correct
0:58:25 it's just it's the burden of proof it's
0:58:27 the how skeptical is the person going to
0:58:29 look in front of you how much time are
0:58:31 you have to think about all these
0:58:32 variables
0:58:33 yes
0:58:35 if you see that the thing that caused
0:58:37 the Big Bang is eternal
0:58:39 I didn't say it perfect do you believe
0:58:41 in God yeah
0:58:42 that's it if they say that then that's
0:58:44 that's all we wanted to hear from him
0:58:45 that's right yeah so that's what we're
0:58:48 seeing as well
0:58:50 the thing that caused the Big Bang is
0:58:52 the sound like okay you know at some
0:58:54 point that's what I'm trying to say to
0:58:55 you
0:58:56 um that's the point but you'll see
0:58:59 there's a thread there's a line that
0:59:01 joins all of these arguments the
0:59:03 composition argument the what is the
0:59:06 thread that joins all this arguments the
0:59:07 key argument that we spoke about before
0:59:09 and this uh argument of um
0:59:12 because I want to show you something
0:59:13 here which I think is very fascinating
0:59:14 actually
0:59:16 but you know I don't want to give it
0:59:18 away but what is the thread first first
0:59:20 question what is the thread that joins
0:59:21 telekeeb argument
0:59:23 with the anti or the um arguments
0:59:27 against an infinite regress what's the
0:59:29 commonality between the two Notions
0:59:37 what is in common between turkey
0:59:41 and the arguments against infinite
0:59:42 regress
0:59:43 like as in if you've got a turkey
0:59:47 things which are composed so they've got
0:59:48 parts and then with the infinite regress
0:59:50 that chain has got individual things
0:59:51 that are yeah okay so what's what what
0:59:53 is in common what what
0:59:56 is the argument what is one argument
0:59:58 that can be made which will encapsulate
0:59:59 both of those arguments
1:00:02 I think this contagion can't be
1:00:04 eternal
1:00:06 okay well think about something else
1:00:12 it's a causation
1:00:15 not necessarily
1:00:17 okay I think what is that keep let's
1:00:19 just break this down turkey composition
1:00:21 so what what do we say anything that is
1:00:23 made out of
1:00:25 parts and what do we say parts are
1:00:28 something
1:00:30 um
1:00:31 subtraction and addition okay you can
1:00:34 say that yeah that's an ontological
1:00:36 perspective you see
1:00:38 so if we say something that is
1:00:40 susceptible to addition or subtraction
1:00:42 well let's just say addition for the
1:00:44 sake of argument that's the threat that
1:00:45 joins it
1:00:46 the thread that joins turkey and the
1:00:49 infinite regret the anti-infinant
1:00:50 rigorous arguments both of them
1:00:53 uh there's a there's a robust focus on
1:00:54 limitation
1:00:56 anything
1:00:58 which is can be proven not to be
1:01:01 unlimited is contingent
1:01:04 basically anything which can be proven
1:01:06 not to be unlimited is dependent it's
1:01:09 contingent it's caused fill in the
1:01:11 blanks
1:01:13 it's not God yeah
1:01:15 because God is all those things then so
1:01:17 and you can't have a world with only
1:01:19 those things therefore you need a thing
1:01:21 like the necessary being or The God or
1:01:23 whatever
1:01:26 and you know who actually puts this in a
1:01:28 very nice formulation
1:01:30 and we haven't mentioned his name enough
1:01:31 here hamza's horses what's his book this
1:01:35 is book here someone uh he says it very
1:01:38 interestingly in his book uh Divine
1:01:39 reality
1:01:40 he says anything with limited variables
1:01:43 is dependent
1:01:44 anything with limited variables
1:01:48 that's the idea tarkib is saying
1:01:51 anything with limited variables is
1:01:52 dependent
1:01:54 the anti-infinite regress arguments are
1:01:57 saying anything with limited variable
1:02:00 you can't you're saying you're showing
1:02:02 you how there cannot be something with
1:02:04 unlimited variables so they actually
1:02:06 work hand in hand
1:02:09 all these arguments there's a point
1:02:11 where all coalesces together
1:02:14 that there's a need for the unlimited
1:02:16 there's a need for the infinite yet
1:02:18 everything we assess is finite
1:02:22 that's it
1:02:24 there's a need for the infinite there's
1:02:26 a need for the unlimited however
1:02:29 everything we are looking at or can
1:02:31 assess or scrutinize is limited
1:02:36 therefore you know you didn't
1:02:38 necessarily being you need the uncle's
1:02:39 cause you need to first move out all
1:02:40 these kinds of things
1:02:44 like argument which is like
1:02:47 that's just up to to uh
1:02:50 if you add to it then it's not infinite
1:02:51 yeah yeah so is he merely talking about
1:02:54 time here no he's talking about anything
1:02:56 that's why he gives examples of like the
1:02:58 rotating planets and stuff like that but
1:03:00 that's uh in relation to time right yeah
1:03:03 in relation to time but you know he gave
1:03:05 the example of the infinite souls okay
1:03:07 yeah
1:03:08 he gave more than one example there's
1:03:10 another example that was given about
1:03:11 Luna and solar eclipses I'm not sure if
1:03:13 you've seen that one which is like if
1:03:14 you say there's an infinite Universe
1:03:16 then you'd have to say the amount of
1:03:17 lunar eclipses is the same as the amount
1:03:18 of solar eclipses which is absurd
1:03:22 these are strong arguments I I've not
1:03:24 seen I've not seen an undercut as Visa I
1:03:26 mean the the baits are online
1:03:28 and the one who has championed this line
1:03:31 of argumentation is William Lane Craig
1:03:33 and he's he is faced and I would at dare
1:03:35 say except for Sean Carroll
1:03:37 it was the only one who who defeated him
1:03:40 he has beaten everybody in a debate that
1:03:43 he has used this argument he's he spoke
1:03:46 to everybody and he defeated everyone
1:03:47 except for Sean Carroll and you could
1:03:49 argue rhetorically Christopher Hitchens
1:03:52 even though christovations was defeated
1:03:54 logically but rhetorically he was more
1:03:57 you know he's more he's more charismatic
1:04:00 and that probably saved him from
1:04:01 humiliation
1:04:03 but yeah this this argument has been out
1:04:06 and in use since 1979 and now it's 2022.
1:04:10 and that's when the first edition of the
1:04:13 book Kalam cosmological argument not my
1:04:15 one because Martin has an S at the end
1:04:16 of it cosmological arguments
1:04:19 because I was trying to show that you
1:04:20 know there's many of them there's many
1:04:21 arguments here
1:04:23 but here's one 96 000 won then you know
1:04:26 1979 his book until now he's been using
1:04:29 these things
1:04:30 and I always say it's so isn't it so
1:04:33 interesting that he's using you know
1:04:34 hazeli's arguments to to to promote
1:04:37 Christianity
1:04:38 he's using the arguments of a Muslim man
1:04:40 to to defend his religion
1:04:45 anyway
1:04:46 um that's if you guys understand how the
1:04:49 infinity arguments work now because
1:04:50 they're very important I just want to do
1:04:52 one quick thing before we finish
1:04:54 um
1:04:57 which is about particularization who
1:05:00 remembers what taxis is Ali makes this
1:05:03 argument or how the Asha is in general
1:05:05 makes
1:05:06 yeah
1:05:08 that
1:05:09 say for example this phone is the way
1:05:12 it's like it has certain things about it
1:05:14 the brown cover screen is cracked in
1:05:16 some places things like that but it
1:05:18 obviously could not be like that I could
1:05:20 have not dropped it the screen could not
1:05:21 be cracked so the case could be blue or
1:05:23 purple whatever it is
1:05:24 so the fact that it is one way rather
1:05:26 than another way
1:05:27 that has to be explained as if you have
1:05:30 two contingent outcomes why is one
1:05:32 preferred over another
1:05:33 and so he says that Allah basically you
1:05:36 need you need somebody that or something
1:05:38 or some external agent that specifies or
1:05:41 selects one of those potential outcomes
1:05:43 over another
1:05:45 absolutely now there is a criticism one
1:05:47 can make of this
1:05:52 what do you think criticism is
1:06:02 not necessarily
1:06:04 to do the will of God
1:06:08 it was always ruled that way then then
1:06:10 what it would be necessary right yeah
1:06:13 do you see the point so if it's always
1:06:14 ruled that way then there was no need to
1:06:16 yeah however
1:06:21 itself it's continuing yeah as it's
1:06:24 connected yeah good so that's how we've
1:06:25 we've solved it we say that in
1:06:27 abstraction by itself it's not
1:06:29 you cannot argue it is necessary but
1:06:31 only in relation to the Lesser existence
1:06:34 is necessary basically
1:06:36 but it's contingent and of itself when
1:06:38 we say this could have been another way
1:06:41 the Asha is very clear that when we say
1:06:44 mumkin
1:06:45 it's not just
1:06:48 it's not just that it could be one way
1:06:49 or Not Another but it's that it's what
1:06:52 what is mumkin
1:06:55 is generatable or destructible it has
1:06:57 the potential for generatability and
1:06:59 destructibility that it can be destroyed
1:07:01 it can be done obviously someone will
1:07:02 say well energy cannot be created or
1:07:04 destroyed
1:07:06 but you can reformulate the argument
1:07:08 which to say it can be destroyed
1:07:11 uh as in its present form
1:07:16 Nanny this can be completely changed to
1:07:18 something which it isn't I can change
1:07:20 this thing
1:07:22 to something completely different I can
1:07:24 evaporate it for that I can put an acid
1:07:25 you know yeah I can end it
1:07:28 or even better there was a time where
1:07:30 this didn't exist at all
1:07:34 you know so and then you've got other
1:07:37 arguments of change and stuff like that
1:07:38 which we've spoken about before in the
1:07:40 past but this this is important because
1:07:42 this argument of taxis establishes the
1:07:45 will of God
1:07:46 it's a good argument for establishing
1:07:48 the will of God why is it there has to
1:07:50 be an external sorting agent that why is
1:07:53 something a not b
1:07:55 c not D whatever is because something
1:07:57 has chosen
1:07:59 there's some approval going on that's
1:08:01 gotta be this way not that way
1:08:03 okay so these are the arguments any
1:08:06 other questions before we end
1:08:11 okay well these are the main arguments
1:08:12 we've covered them and I hope you guys
1:08:15 have uh enjoyed it as much as I have
1:08:17 it's been mentally stimulating
1:08:20 and uh in the next session we're going
1:08:22 to move on completely from Kalam and
1:08:24 stuff like that something completely
1:08:25 different
1:08:26 but we've done three we've done three
1:08:28 sessions here on the on this tradition
1:08:30 stuff and now we're going to move on to
1:08:32 something completely different talking
1:08:33 about political issues and like any
1:08:35 completely different topics
1:08:37 and on this uh bombshell as uh what's
1:08:40 his name used to say in the Top Gear
1:08:42 [Laughter]
1:08:44 we will end the show