Divine Link: The Argument from Dependency for God's Existence (2018-07-09) ​

0:00:03 so let me just repeat the basic
0:00:05 structure of the argument the universe
0:00:07 and all that we perceive is either
0:00:09 independent dependent on something else
0:00:12 dependent or dependent on something
0:00:15 independent and eternal the universe and
0:00:18 all that we perceive cannot be
0:00:20 independent or dependent on something
0:00:22 else dependent therefore the universe
0:00:25 and all that we perceive depends on
0:00:27 something independent and eternal that's
0:00:30 the basic structure of the argument okay
0:00:33 now before we go into the nitty-gritty
0:00:37 of the argument it's very important for
0:00:40 us to understand what we mean by
0:00:41 dependent in this context and before I
0:00:45 define what we mean by dependent in this
0:00:48 context I want you to focus on this
0:00:51 rational principle it is the mark of a
0:00:54 rational mind to question that which did
0:00:57 not have to be this is the kind of
0:00:59 cognitive intellectual motivation for
0:01:01 this argument it's the sign of a sound
0:01:04 chuckle a sound intellect it says it's a
0:01:07 sign of a rational mind to question that
0:01:11 which didn't have to be if we go to the
0:01:13 park and we see a hovering yellow ball
0:01:17 we're not going to pass the hovering
0:01:20 yellow bone and say hey the ball
0:01:24 necessarily exists in the park hovering
0:01:27 in the way that it does no because
0:01:30 you're an intelligent human being and
0:01:32 you think to yourself why is the ball
0:01:36 there how is it hovering because it's
0:01:39 the sign of a rational mind to question
0:01:41 that which didn't have to be the
0:01:43 hovering board didn't have to be there
0:01:45 so this is the kind of motivation
0:01:48 cognitive intellectual motivation
0:01:50 intuitive motivation for this argument
0:01:53 which is it's the sign of an intelligent
0:01:56 mind to question something that didn't
0:01:58 have to be the way that it is for
0:02:00 example if we're driving and we pass a
0:02:04 roundabout and on the roundabout we see
0:02:06 an arrangement of flowers that says
0:02:10 let you learn hey get Lala right you
0:02:14 know going to be like hey that original
0:02:16 flowers
0:02:17 necessarily exists in that way no
0:02:20 because you could just tell intuitively
0:02:23 and intelligently using your cognitive
0:02:25 faculties your rational faculties that
0:02:27 there is something about this region of
0:02:30 flowers that is telling me it didn't
0:02:33 have to be the way that it is so it's a
0:02:35 sign it's a mark of a rational mind to
0:02:38 question it why is it that why is it
0:02:40 that way why is there an arrangement of
0:02:43 flowers that says la ilaha illallah
0:02:45 there is no deity worthy of worship but
0:02:47 Allah and some of the explanations could
0:02:50 be I was chance there was a wind that
0:02:52 blew it could be that there was a
0:02:53 gardener whether they kiss maybe it
0:02:55 requires an explanation this is very
0:02:59 important to understand the whole
0:03:02 motivation behind this argument of
0:03:04 dependency is that it's a sign of a
0:03:07 rational mind to question that which
0:03:09 didn't have to be so there's now defined
0:03:11 dependency let's define what we mean by
0:03:14 dependency but by the way in the
0:03:16 philosophical literature you may see
0:03:18 this argument being termed and-and-and
0:03:21 being labeled as the argument from
0:03:24 contingency and you may see this in
0:03:26 Islamic textbooks Islamic Creed books
0:03:28 that when you see translations for
0:03:30 example of Arcadia however for example
0:03:34 you would see that it would mention
0:03:36 maybe the word contingent you see that a
0:03:38 lot especially in Creed textbooks
0:03:40 especially in the translation of an
0:03:43 explanation of a cadet hawea so I like
0:03:47 to use the word dependency because it's
0:03:49 more common contingency is notice it's a
0:03:52 bit of a tough word not that I'm shy of
0:03:55 using tough words but you get the point
0:03:57 so what I mean by dependent the first
0:04:01 thing the first definition of dependent
0:04:04 in the context of this argument is that
0:04:06 it is not necessary so something is
0:04:10 dependent if it is not necessary now you
0:04:14 may ask the question Hamza what do we
0:04:16 mean by necessary necessary means it was
0:04:20 impossible for it to have
0:04:23 existed let me repeat the concept of
0:04:26 necessity is not a kind of concept that
0:04:30 we use everyday it's more philosophical
0:04:33 theological concept that something that
0:04:36 is necessary is something in which it
0:04:39 was impossible for it to have not
0:04:41 existed it necessarily exists okay so
0:04:46 this will mean by necessary so therefore
0:04:48 something that is dependent is something
0:04:50 that is not necessary which means what
0:04:54 it means it could have not existed
0:04:57 that's what dependency means that
0:05:00 something is dependent if it was
0:05:02 possible for it to not exist for example
0:05:05 am i necessary no there's no yet nothing
0:05:10 necessary about my existence I could
0:05:12 have not existed right this wall could
0:05:17 have not existed there is nothing
0:05:19 necessary about this wall my
0:05:22 observations of this wall my
0:05:24 understanding of this wall the features
0:05:26 of this wall
0:05:27 do not cry out to me saying that it is
0:05:30 necessary it was impossible for it to
0:05:33 have not existed in actual fact it's the
0:05:36 opposite it could have not existed right
0:05:40 good for example let me give you another
0:05:44 example I'm gonna give you lots of
0:05:45 examples or these concepts can drill in
0:05:47 your mind I'm hungry
0:05:51 it's 3:00 in the morning okay it's a hot
0:05:55 summer so you get hungry and you get
0:05:57 thirsty so what do I do
0:05:58 I wake up I go downstairs walk to the
0:06:02 kitchen and I open the fridge and the
0:06:06 light comes on right and when you open
0:06:07 the fridge the refrigerator the light
0:06:09 comes on and what do I see I see a pen
0:06:12 on top of a egg box do I close the
0:06:17 fridge and say the pen and egg box
0:06:21 necessarily exists in the fridge
0:06:23 no I start to think
0:06:26 why and how on earth is the pen on top
0:06:30 of the egg box in the fridge because
0:06:33 there is nothing necessary about the
0:06:35 arrangement
0:06:36 there's nothing necessary about their
0:06:38 placement in the fridge there's nothing
0:06:39 necessary about the pen being on top of
0:06:42 the egg box in actual fact they could
0:06:47 have been arranged in a different way
0:06:49 they could have not existed at all in
0:06:52 actual fact the pen egg box could have
0:06:55 been on top of the fridge it could have
0:06:56 been in the food cupboard the pen could
0:07:03 have been in the egg box like he could
0:07:07 have been starving the egg box for
0:07:08 example you get the point you could have
0:07:10 been arranged and placed in a different
0:07:11 way
0:07:11 there is nothing necessary about the
0:07:13 arrangement of the pen on the egg box
0:07:14 and the placement in existence of the
0:07:17 pen in the egg box so what does this
0:07:18 mean it means it requires an explanation
0:07:21 but what type of explanation it doesn't
0:07:25 explain itself it must be an external
0:07:28 explanation because if it explains
0:07:31 itself it means it's necessary
0:07:33 it means it's necessary it means that
0:07:36 that it was impossible for it to have
0:07:39 not existed but that's not the type of
0:07:41 explanation that we're looking for now
0:07:43 because it is dependent it is contingent
0:07:46 there is nothing necessary about the
0:07:48 Parana egg box
0:07:49 therefore it requires an explanation
0:07:51 external to itself so what are the
0:07:54 possible explanations in this case the
0:07:56 possible explanations in this case is
0:07:58 the pen was designed by somebody was
0:08:00 made by somebody my wife bought it she
0:08:03 gave it to the children they were
0:08:05 playing with it then my son opened the
0:08:07 fridge and put on top of the egg box for
0:08:09 example yeah
0:08:10 explanation of the egg box we like eggs
0:08:13 we bought eggs you know eggs came from a
0:08:16 chicken okay or whatever the case may be
0:08:18 the point is there is an external
0:08:21 explanation to explain the existence
0:08:24 presence arrangement of the pen and egg
0:08:27 box therefore it's dependent make sense
0:08:30 of all good second definition of
0:08:34 dependency
0:08:36 the components of basic building blocks
0:08:39 the components of fundamental building
0:08:41 blocks could have been arranged in a
0:08:43 different way so take material substance
0:08:46 for example any material substance a
0:08:48 mobile phone a house a car or even even
0:08:54 something smaller
0:08:55 it has fundamental building blocks
0:08:58 fundamental building blocks those
0:09:00 building blocks are arranged in a
0:09:02 particular way there is nothing
0:09:05 necessary about that arrangement it
0:09:07 could have been arranged in another way
0:09:09 there's nothing necessary about that
0:09:12 arrangement that arrangement doesn't
0:09:13 explain itself it requires an
0:09:15 explanation external to it let me give
0:09:18 an example and I've mentioned this
0:09:19 earlier imagine we're driving a car we
0:09:22 stop near a roundabout actually let's
0:09:25 stop we stop near a park and we've
0:09:27 parked up our car and we're we're next
0:09:30 to the park and in the park we see the
0:09:32 arrangement of flowers and the
0:09:33 arrangement of flowers says I love you
0:09:36 now there's nothing necessary about the
0:09:38 arrangement of the flowers those flowers
0:09:40 do not explain themselves there is a
0:09:44 requirement there is a need to explain
0:09:47 the arrangement of the flowers external
0:09:49 to the flowers and possible explanations
0:09:52 could include what it could mean it
0:09:53 could include it was a gust of wind or
0:09:56 it could include it could it could
0:09:58 include that it was a gardener like the
0:10:00 local council told the gardener to place
0:10:03 the flowers in those way in the place of
0:10:05 flowers in that the formation in that
0:10:07 arrangement so the point here is the
0:10:11 fundamental fundamental building blocks
0:10:13 of things of any material substance any
0:10:15 physical substance could have been
0:10:17 arranged in a different way because we
0:10:19 could ask the question why is it
0:10:20 arranged in that way or not another way
0:10:23 and that question itself give right
0:10:26 gives rise to an explanation that's
0:10:28 external to the arrangement it requires
0:10:30 an explanation external to that
0:10:33 particular arrangement
0:10:36 the other definition of dependency is a
0:10:39 very common sense linguistic notion of
0:10:42 dependency that it requires something
0:10:45 outside of itself to exist it's not
0:10:48 self-subsisting it requires something
0:10:50 outside of itself to exist like for
0:10:52 example you had lunch earlier if you
0:10:55 don't have lunch for a few days in a few
0:10:58 weeks you won't be here anymore right
0:11:00 you require something outside of
0:11:02 yourself in order for you to exist you
0:11:03 are dependent in that way interestingly
0:11:08 and they I want you to focus on this
0:11:10 because it's an important this is a very
0:11:12 important kind of definition of
0:11:18 dependency dependent things dependent
0:11:24 things have limited physical qualities
0:11:26 okay
0:11:27 so dependent things have limited
0:11:31 physical qualities another way of
0:11:32 putting it the defining feature of a
0:11:35 dependent thing is that it has limited
0:11:37 physical qualities for example look at
0:11:40 this coffee cup this coffee cup has
0:11:43 limited physical qualities right it has
0:11:46 a certain shape temperature size volume
0:11:51 capacity smell even charge and it's
0:11:57 volume shape size color etc is limited
0:12:01 it is particular for example I don't
0:12:05 know it has a volume of say
0:12:10 and a half a liter or maybe 300
0:12:13 milliliters or whatever the case may be
0:12:14 now you could ask the question why is it
0:12:17 this shape and size or not another shape
0:12:19 and size why is it this color and not
0:12:22 another color why is it this smell and
0:12:25 not another smell why is it this
0:12:27 temperature and not another temperature
0:12:28 why is it this charge or not another
0:12:30 charge it therefore you could ask the
0:12:34 question what explains this limited
0:12:36 physical qualities well it can't explain
0:12:39 itself because the cup and listen to
0:12:41 this very carefully the cup did not give
0:12:43 rise to its limited physical qualities
0:12:46 the cup did not give rise to the limited
0:12:49 physical qualities there must be an
0:12:51 explanation outside of the cup that
0:12:54 explains the cup sound like Bruce Cena
0:12:57 right you know you know his famous
0:13:00 statement of if you put water into a
0:13:02 bottle it becomes the bottle if water
0:13:05 into a cup it becomes the cup now water
0:13:08 can flow or it can crash be water my
0:13:11 friend
0:13:12 I believe he took this some Imam Shafi
0:13:14 rahimullah Imam Shafi has a statement on
0:13:16 water and it's almost very similar I'm
0:13:19 gonna read it to you later actually
0:13:21 anyway forget my kind of links between
0:13:24 different historical figures let me give
0:13:27 you another example take my mobile phone
0:13:30 mobile phone has a specific shape size
0:13:33 color temperature texture charge smell
0:13:38 right and it's these things are limited
0:13:42 it has limited physical quality so you
0:13:45 ask yourself the question why is it this
0:13:47 size why is it the shape why is it this
0:13:50 volume why is it this temperature why is
0:13:53 it this color this phone doesn't explain
0:13:57 his own limited physical qualities it
0:13:59 can't and it can't give rise to its own
0:14:03 limited physical qualities so therefore
0:14:05 it requires an external explanation to
0:14:08 explain its limited physical qualities
0:14:11 and hamdulillah
0:14:15 so let's apply this definition of
0:14:18 dependency to the universe and we can
0:14:23 come to the following explanations
0:14:26 possible explanations number one the
0:14:30 universe and all that we perceive our
0:14:34 eternal necessary and independent or the
0:14:38 universe and all that we perceive
0:14:39 depends for its existence on something
0:14:42 else which is also dependent o the
0:14:45 universe and all that we perceive is
0:14:47 dependent for its existence on something
0:14:50 necessary and that is accordingly
0:14:53 eternal and independent so we've
0:14:55 understood what dependency means we give
0:14:57 around four or five definitions and now
0:15:00 we'll when apply to the universe and
0:15:02 once we apply to the universe which
0:15:04 conclusion are we going to come up with
0:15:06 is it going to be that the universe and
0:15:08 all that we perceive our eternal
0:15:10 necessary and independent or is it that
0:15:13 the universe and all that we perceive
0:15:14 depends for its existence or something
0:15:16 else which is also dependent or are we
0:15:19 going to conclude that the universe and
0:15:21 all that we perceive is dependent for
0:15:23 its existence on something necessary
0:15:25 that is accordingly eternal and
0:15:27 independent so let's now start to
0:15:29 conceptualize could the universe and all
0:15:33 that we perceive be eternal necessary
0:15:37 and independent given what we've
0:15:39 discussed about the definition of
0:15:40 dependency I want you to answer this
0:15:43 question
0:15:52 come on Richard yes chef could have been
0:15:55 arranged in the different
0:15:58 good so there's a few things we can now
0:16:01 start to understand well the universe
0:16:04 and all that we perceive they're based
0:16:06 on fundamental building blocks if you
0:16:08 remember one of the defining one of the
0:16:10 definitions of dependency is that the
0:16:12 fundamental building blocks or
0:16:13 components of that thing has a certain
0:16:16 arrangement right it doesn't have to be
0:16:18 like physical bits of matter it could be
0:16:20 even like quantum fields or whatever you
0:16:21 want the point is there is a particular
0:16:23 arrangement why that arrangement on
0:16:26 another arrangement now that arrangement
0:16:28 doesn't explain itself therefore it
0:16:31 requires an external explanation to
0:16:33 explain that arrangement then you could
0:16:35 ask anyone a question what are the
0:16:37 fundamental building blocks of the
0:16:38 universe and everything that we perceive
0:16:40 they can give you 50 answers it doesn't
0:16:42 matter the point is whatever answer they
0:16:45 give you you could raise the question
0:16:47 did that arrangement give rise to itself
0:16:49 no there must been an external thing or
0:16:53 set of factors or whatever the case may
0:16:55 be that gave rise to that particular
0:16:57 arrangement so from that definition you
0:16:59 can't say the universe and all that we
0:17:01 perceive is independent is dependent by
0:17:04 the very definition give me another
0:17:07 answer yes so the universe and all that
0:17:13 we perceive have limited physical
0:17:16 qualities and we discussed things that
0:17:19 have limited physical qualities did not
0:17:21 give rise to themselves therefore there
0:17:23 must be an external explanation to
0:17:26 explain the limited physical qualities
0:17:29 of the universe or even the fundamental
0:17:31 building blocks of the universe or even
0:17:32 things within the universe whether it's
0:17:34 plants trees stars galaxies whatever the
0:17:38 case may be or even if something even
0:17:40 more smaller and fundamental like quarks
0:17:42 which are in an atom right the point
0:17:45 here is they have limited physical
0:17:46 qualities and they can't give rise to
0:17:50 their own limitations therefore there is
0:17:52 an external explanation or external set
0:17:55 of factors that gave rise to those
0:17:57 limitations give me another reason why
0:18:00 the universe and all that we perceive
0:18:01 could not be independent
0:18:08 okay
0:18:10 moaning when your pilot to the universe
0:18:12 maybe let's pause that for now and
0:18:14 redress it but let's pick something else
0:18:18 what's the easiest one the first one
0:18:20 that we mentioned no that was the third
0:18:25 one what was the first one we mentioned
0:18:27 it's not necessary absolutely and this
0:18:31 isn't our credo books there is nothing
0:18:33 necessary about the universe meaning
0:18:36 that there is an explanation for the
0:18:39 emergence creation and reality and
0:18:41 existence of the universe the universe
0:18:43 doesn't explain itself because necessity
0:18:46 means that the thing that you're talking
0:18:48 about or the phenomenon that you're
0:18:50 talking about explains itself and that
0:18:53 mean it necessarily exists but the
0:18:55 universe doesn't necessarily exist what
0:18:57 do we talk about in the beginning it's
0:18:59 the sign it's the mark of a rational
0:19:01 mind to question that which didn't have
0:19:03 to be the universe could have been
0:19:06 another universe it could have we even
0:19:09 scientifically they say this universe
0:19:11 didn't have to be the way that it is
0:19:13 there could have been another universe
0:19:14 with different features and different
0:19:15 laws for example the universe didn't
0:19:17 have to exist at all it's contingent is
0:19:20 dependent from that point of view
0:19:21 because it is not necessary just to
0:19:24 remind you what does necessity mean
0:19:25 necessity means that it was impossible
0:19:27 for it to have not existed it was
0:19:31 impossible for it to have not existed
0:19:35 but that's not the case for the universe
0:19:37 because it was possible for it to not
0:19:39 have existed that's the point so it's
0:19:42 dependent by definition so good it is
0:19:45 excellent see how we applying the
0:19:47 concepts here so we can conclude that
0:19:49 the universe and all that we perceive
0:19:51 are not independent they're not
0:19:55 independent and therefore they're not
0:19:58 necessary second point the universe and
0:20:02 all that we perceive depends for its
0:20:05 existence or something else which is
0:20:06 also dependent so that's the second
0:20:08 possible explanation we know the first
0:20:09 possible explanation is false what about
0:20:11 this one how'd you answer this question
0:20:13 how do you answer and deal with this
0:20:15 possible explanation so some would argue
0:20:17 fine the universe is dependent it's not
0:20:20 necessary it requires an explanation for
0:20:22 its existence
0:20:23 however that explanation is also
0:20:26 something else dependent how do you
0:20:27 address this
0:20:33 only gave it the overall fashion
0:20:36 yes but they would say that thing itself
0:20:38 is also dependent what they're saying
0:20:40 here is yes we agree the universe is
0:20:43 dependent from what you've just
0:20:45 discussed it's not independent and
0:20:47 necessary but what explains the
0:20:52 existence and the features of the
0:20:54 universe and everything within it is
0:20:55 something else that's also dependent is
0:20:58 that a good explanation for us yes
0:21:02 absolutely
0:21:04 you'd have an infinite regress of
0:21:05 dependencies what we're looking for is
0:21:08 an explanation you haven't explained
0:21:09 anything you're just saying what
0:21:11 explains a dependent thing is another
0:21:14 dependent thing okay what explains that
0:21:16 dependent thing Oh another dependent
0:21:18 thing you're not giving us any
0:21:20 explanation here in any shape or form
0:21:23 that's the point and you have an
0:21:26 absurdity of an infinite regress of
0:21:28 dependencies because the only way to
0:21:33 altima t explain things that are not
0:21:36 necessary the only way to ultimately
0:21:38 explain dependent things is to refer to
0:21:42 something that is not dependent and
0:21:44 therefore necessary otherwise you don't
0:21:46 have an explain all to my explanation
0:21:48 and as you said that an infinite number
0:21:51 of dependencies is impossible as we
0:21:54 discussed in the previous session when
0:21:55 we talked about the quranic' argument
0:21:57 for God's existence however let me just
0:22:00 move back so I want to test you on this
0:22:01 what if the universe was eternal and
0:22:04 that's why I like this argument because
0:22:06 you could assume the universe is eternal
0:22:08 not that we adopt that because that
0:22:10 would be cool for right that'll be a
0:22:12 form of disbelief but even people bring
0:22:15 that to the table you can address it
0:22:17 because you don't have to rely on any
0:22:19 scientific evidence for this argument as
0:22:20 I said this is a first principles
0:22:22 argument you could absorb any science
0:22:24 anonymous Island welcome and which the
0:22:27 arguments to works it's a timeless
0:22:29 argument this is why all the schools of
0:22:31 Creed in Islam adopted this argument
0:22:34 you'll see it in the different
0:22:36 conceptions of accurate hawea they would
0:22:38 refer to the argument from contingency
0:22:41 necessity the argument from dependency
0:22:44 you'll see this right so the
0:22:48 being way if the universe was eternal
0:22:51 and they bet they'll be like see the
0:22:55 universe is eternal the universe
0:22:56 explains itself how would you deal with
0:23:00 that point
0:23:02 [Music]
0:23:09 think about it so they're the Greenview
0:23:12 so far
0:23:13 okay Hamza I reviewed with you about
0:23:15 this argument it's very good
0:23:17 it's intuitive it's based on first
0:23:18 principles you know we don't have to
0:23:21 include any science in this because it
0:23:22 transcends science it's a metaphysical
0:23:24 argument I agree with what you're saying
0:23:27 about necessity and dependency and
0:23:29 contingency that's fine I agree that the
0:23:31 universe cannot be independent and
0:23:34 necessary but you know what way if the
0:23:36 universe is eternal doesn't that mean
0:23:38 that therefore the universe is necessary
0:23:44 think about it no it doesn't even if the
0:23:48 universe was eternal so what it doesn't
0:23:52 mean now it necessarily exists and
0:23:56 here's an interesting example imagine
0:23:59 there an infinite number of human beings
0:24:01 each human being was produced by the
0:24:04 biological activity of their parents and
0:24:06 each of these parents was in turn
0:24:08 produced by the biological activity of
0:24:10 their parents ad infinitum wouldn't it
0:24:13 still be perfectly reasonable to ask why
0:24:16 are there any human beings at all fine
0:24:18 even if it's an eternal number of
0:24:20 infinite number of human beings fine
0:24:22 let's take it the universe is eternal
0:24:25 let's just accept if one moment how does
0:24:27 that now follow it's therefore necessary
0:24:29 I agree for something to be necessary it
0:24:33 has to be eternal but for something to
0:24:35 be eternal it doesn't mean has to be
0:24:37 necessary you get the logic here
0:24:38 let me repeat for something to be
0:24:40 necessary it has to be eternal why
0:24:43 because if it was finite it requires an
0:24:45 explanation why it's finite right so
0:24:47 it's not necessary anymore however
0:24:49 something be eternal doesn't mean it has
0:24:51 to be necessary although if something is
0:24:55 necessary it has to be eternal so in
0:24:58 this case is saying well the universe is
0:25:00 a journal therefore it's necessary that
0:25:02 doesn't logically follow because you can
0:25:05 have an infinite number of human beings
0:25:06 right that exist for eternity but you
0:25:09 could still ask the question why are the
0:25:12 human beings in existence in the first
0:25:14 place because it's the sign of a
0:25:16 rational mind to question that which
0:25:17 didn't have to be there is nothing
0:25:19 necessary about their existence and each
0:25:21 part of the
0:25:22 of the human beings you could ask why
0:25:25 are they there they're fundamental
0:25:27 building blocks of those of those of
0:25:29 those human beings could be arranged in
0:25:30 a particular way in a different way each
0:25:33 of those human beings have limited
0:25:34 physical qualities that didn't give rise
0:25:36 to themselves they must be an external
0:25:38 explanation that gave rise to those
0:25:40 limited physical qualities all of those
0:25:41 human beings and every human being in
0:25:43 that chain so whether you think is a
0:25:45 turn-on or is irrelevant for this
0:25:47 argument it still follows that requires
0:25:51 an external explanation
0:25:52 there's nothing necessary about your
0:25:55 so-called eternal universe because if
0:25:57 they could have been another eternal
0:25:58 universe with different features and
0:26:00 laws for example in actual fact the
0:26:04 there could have been a universe that
0:26:06 wasn't eternal but finite
0:26:07 there could have been a universe that
0:26:09 didn't exist at all right there's
0:26:11 nothing necessary about the existence of
0:26:12 your so-called eternal universe so it
0:26:15 doesn't follow just because something is
0:26:16 eternal it therefore it means it must be
0:26:19 necessary that doesn't follow and this
0:26:21 full experiment by showing that imagine
0:26:24 you had an infinite number of human
0:26:25 beings you still could perfectly ask the
0:26:28 question well why they're human beings
0:26:30 in the first place and why is that wide
0:26:32 why do they have those limited physical
0:26:34 qualities why they arranged in that
0:26:36 particular way so the universe is not
0:26:41 independent necessary in eternal number
0:26:44 two the universe that's dependent cannot
0:26:47 be explained by something else that's
0:26:48 dependent and even if you claim the
0:26:50 universe is eternal it doesn't follow
0:26:51 that it's necessary
0:26:52 so therefore the best explanation the
0:26:55 only rational explanation is the
0:26:57 universe and all that we perceive
0:26:59 depends on something independent and
0:27:02 eternal why is it independent very
0:27:06 simple because if it were dependent it
0:27:08 would require an explanation then we you
0:27:10 don't have any answer it has to be
0:27:13 eternal because if it was not eternal in
0:27:16 other words finite it would be dependent
0:27:18 and finite things require an explanation
0:27:21 for their existence dependent things
0:27:23 require an explanation for their
0:27:25 existence so it has to be independent
0:27:27 and eternal therefore we can conclude
0:27:31 that the universe and everything that we
0:27:33 perceive depends upon something that is
0:27:35 a turn on in
0:27:36 and this is best explained by the
0:27:38 Islamic conception of a divine that
0:27:40 Allah is independent he necessarily
0:27:42 exists and this terminology exists in
0:27:45 our created text books as you see in the
0:27:50 Islamic tradition allah subhanho wa
0:27:51 taala says allah is independent all that
0:27:53 exists o mankind it is you who stand in
0:27:56 need of Allah whereas he alone is so
0:27:57 sufficient than one whom all praise is
0:27:59 due and even kathira the exegete the one
0:28:03 who explained the Quran the classical
0:28:05 scholar he mentions concerning the above
0:28:07 verse they need him in all that they do
0:28:09 and he has no need of them are told he
0:28:12 is unique in his being free of all needs
0:28:14 and has no partner or associate however
0:28:18 as you know the human being is a
0:28:20 contentious fellow as the Quran says you
0:28:23 know we want to split the split the hair
0:28:25 in an infinite number of ways as they
0:28:27 say the first contention is well the
0:28:30 universe exists independently this is an
0:28:35 easy contention because we've addressed
0:28:36 it in the argument no say oh whoa
0:28:38 the university has got limited physical
0:28:40 qualities the universe needs explanation
0:28:42 about who cares it just exists
0:28:43 independently well the easy way to do
0:28:46 with this is well that's a cop-out
0:28:47 because we already know that the
0:28:49 universe and everything that we perceive
0:28:51 within it has limited physical qualities
0:28:53 its fundamental building block building
0:28:54 blocks are arranged in a particular way
0:28:56 why is it that arrangement not another
0:28:58 particular major therefore requires an
0:28:59 external explanation
0:29:00 there is nothing necessary about the
0:29:02 universe itself when we observe and try
0:29:05 to even perceive the universe there's
0:29:08 nothing that cries out to us that says
0:29:09 it's necessarily existing no in actual
0:29:12 fact it's the opposite when we live and
0:29:14 experience the universe and the cosmos
0:29:16 is actually telling us they could have
0:29:17 not existed right nothing necessary
0:29:20 about its existence meaning it could
0:29:22 have not existed there is nothing
0:29:24 necessary about the way that it is right
0:29:27 so that's a cop-out you can't just claim
0:29:30 it's independent just because you want
0:29:32 it to well there's a little bit more of
0:29:34 a complex contention it says well the
0:29:37 universe is a brute fact is as a brute
0:29:41 fact get over it you'll never know
0:29:45 and it's just a brute fact forget about
0:29:48 it there is no explanation for the
0:29:51 universe that's what they're basically
0:29:52 saying here there's a Bertrand Russell
0:29:54 argument I think he mentioned this in
0:29:55 the 1960s in a BBC radio debate he had
0:29:58 with someone he said he's a brute fact
0:30:00 there's no explanation for the universe
0:30:01 get over it get over it how would you
0:30:06 address this
0:30:13 go for it
0:30:20 yeah it's not an argument but why
0:30:26 but why is it not a rational argument
0:30:32 something that
0:30:36 well not always the case not something
0:30:39 that exists must have come from
0:30:40 something something that began to exist
0:30:42 must have come from something and
0:30:43 something that exists that is not
0:30:45 necessary must have an explanation
0:30:47 because you can't say everything that
0:30:49 exists comes from something because I
0:30:50 like exists right and perhaps even
0:30:53 philosophers would never say that
0:30:54 everything that exists has a cause
0:30:55 that's not true
0:30:56 everything that begins to exist as a
0:30:58 cause or everything that exists that has
0:31:00 features that show that it's not
0:31:02 necessary requires an explanation which
0:31:04 it'll be more subtle with those things
0:31:06 yeah
0:31:06 yes explanations believe yes so good
0:31:13 well done so basically what they're
0:31:15 saying is well a dependent thing like
0:31:17 like the universe has no explanation
0:31:19 well it does have explanation you just
0:31:22 don't know the explanation yeah or
0:31:24 you're not willing to go down that path
0:31:26 because it will end up with with God
0:31:30 right and that's why people like to to
0:31:32 not address these cosmic conclusions let
0:31:35 let me make you think about this right I
0:31:38 said in the beginning imagine you're
0:31:40 walking down the street and you see a
0:31:42 hovering green ball does that hovering
0:31:47 green ball exist necessarily no is there
0:31:51 anything necessary about its existence
0:31:53 because it could have not been there
0:31:55 right it's possible for it to not being
0:31:57 at all correct good now get that green
0:32:00 ball and make it the size of the earth
0:32:02 does it necessarily exist same question
0:32:07 applies doesn't it now make it the size
0:32:09 of the galaxy same question exists
0:32:11 making the size of the universe same
0:32:15 question exists there you go you can't
0:32:18 say to prove fact it requires an
0:32:20 explanation that's the point and what is
0:32:23 that explanation now if you follow this
0:32:26 argument through properly rationally use
0:32:28 your rational faculties your cognitive
0:32:30 abilities then you will come to the
0:32:32 conclude the only ultimate explanation
0:32:33 that explains that dependency of the
0:32:36 universe is that there is an independent
0:32:37 and eternal being that gave rise or
0:32:40 explains this universe that's the point
0:32:43 and what's interesting is it's counter
0:32:47 science it's anti science
0:32:49 yoke's also goes against other spheres
0:32:52 of knowledge why
0:32:54 we'll take science specifically here
0:32:57 isn't there a field of science that
0:32:59 deals with the question of the about the
0:33:01 universe how it began to exist
0:33:03 it's called cosmology like that answer
0:33:06 that contingent itself is denying a
0:33:09 whole sphere of knowledge and science
0:33:11 which is cosmology the beginning of the
0:33:13 universe how it began you know the Big
0:33:15 Bang and all the different seventeen
0:33:16 different models that they have at the
0:33:18 moment right that's the plane falling on
0:33:23 it from this way if someone says science
0:33:26 will find an answer I don't you read the
0:33:29 answer so moving back well they say you
0:33:31 know what this is god of the gaps Hamza
0:33:34 you're basing this on ignorance you have
0:33:36 ignorance of an explanation an ignorance
0:33:39 of the scientific explanation or we
0:33:42 don't currently have a scientific
0:33:43 explanation for the universe in terms of
0:33:46 why it is the way that it is and about
0:33:48 its necessity and dependency in all of
0:33:50 these related concepts you're just
0:33:52 squeezing God there you squeeze an
0:33:55 independent eternal being just to
0:33:56 satisfy your ignorance right how would
0:33:59 you address this yes
0:34:04 [Music]
0:34:11 yes I would argue that this contention
0:34:13 is based upon an internal deny of the
0:34:18 divine because they don't want God to be
0:34:19 in the equation anyway fine but let's
0:34:21 just take what the thing for faith at
0:34:23 face value this thing HMDA you don't
0:34:25 know the science there is no scientific
0:34:26 explanation at the moment
0:34:27 therefore you - squeezing God in there
0:34:30 because you have a gap in your
0:34:32 understanding that's not an argument
0:34:34 right so how do we respond to this well
0:34:40 it's very easy I mentioned this in the
0:34:42 beginning science is irrelevant to this
0:34:45 argument it's not an empirical argument
0:34:48 it is a first principle metaphysical
0:34:51 argument you could bring all the science
0:34:53 you want and then once I learn let's
0:34:56 open the door come inside oh you could
0:35:00 bring a scientific explanation in 3050
0:35:02 if we're still alive like humans that is
0:35:05 yeah bring anything you want why because
0:35:09 what can science only refer to if you
0:35:11 studied the philosophy of science and
0:35:12 the method of science what can science
0:35:14 only refer to well let me give you a
0:35:17 hint
0:35:17 atheist philosopher professor Elliot
0:35:19 Sauber in his essay empiricism what does
0:35:22 he say and any any moment scientists are
0:35:26 restricted to the observations that have
0:35:29 at hand can you observe something
0:35:31 necessary because the minute you observe
0:35:34 it you can only observe limited physical
0:35:36 qualities which means you can only
0:35:37 observe dependent things size can only
0:35:40 refer to things are dependent so
0:35:43 whatever scientific answer explanation
0:35:45 Theory whatever the kids may be musing
0:35:48 right that they come up with it would
0:35:51 always refer to something that is
0:35:53 dependent so the interesting thing here
0:35:57 is science can never solve this question
0:36:00 it's a metaphysical question that's the
0:36:04 point and that's why I love this
0:36:06 argument you don't have to be a
0:36:07 scientist you just have to be a thinker
0:36:08 and Muslims are thinkers right do you
0:36:11 see the point so whatever signs even say
0:36:14 oh there's a multiverse there's a
0:36:15 million universes a billion universes
0:36:17 there's a world ensemble there's a
0:36:20 spaghetti monster or whatever they
0:36:22 whatever they want to bring
0:36:25 if they bring anything that scientific
0:36:26 it would always refer to something that
0:36:28 is dependent hamdulillah as I said here
0:36:33 this is not a scientific argument it is
0:36:34 a metaphysical one based on first
0:36:36 principles all that science can do is
0:36:38 provide answers that we refer to refund
0:36:40 phenomena that are dependent science
0:36:43 cannot point to something that
0:36:44 necessarily exists so we've defined
0:36:48 dependency we've applied that definition
0:36:51 or and each time we define the different
0:36:53 aspects of what we mean by dependent we
0:36:55 gave practical examples then we apply
0:36:57 that to the universe then we had three
0:36:59 logical explanations the universe is
0:37:02 independent eternal or the universe is
0:37:04 dependent by depend on something else
0:37:06 that's dependent it's explained by
0:37:07 something else that's a dependent or the
0:37:09 universe is explained by something
0:37:11 that's independent and eternal we dealt
0:37:13 with all of those issues and we
0:37:14 concluded the universe must be as a
0:37:16 result or is explained by something
0:37:18 that's independent and eternal I believe
0:37:21 this is enough to awaken the truth
0:37:23 within if you remember what we discuss
0:37:25 about the fitrah the innate disposition
0:37:27 it gets clouded this argument can awaken
0:37:30 the truth of in and if there are more
0:37:32 nitty-gritty type of questions then I
0:37:35 think that will be an indicator that
0:37:37 something else is going on maybe
0:37:38 something psycho-social psycho-spiritual
0:37:41 and let me just engage with them in a
0:37:42 polite way buy them dinner right because
0:37:46 I think this is enough to awaken that
0:37:47 intuitive truth within so you had a
0:37:50 question sure no okay good
0:37:53 yes sir
0:37:58 yes yes absolutely that so the point is
0:38:07 whatever they bring to you even if they
0:38:09 give you a scientific explanation and
0:38:11 they say that it's eternal that's not a
0:38:13 problem because we said eternal things
0:38:15 are not necessary now I'm not always
0:38:17 necessary but necessary things are
0:38:20 always eternal by some but eternal
0:38:22 things are always necessary so even if
0:38:24 they given eternal number of universes
0:38:26 those universes are still dependent so
0:38:29 they're just explaining the dependent
0:38:30 universe by more dependent things
0:38:32 science can never refer to something
0:38:34 that is necessary from that point of
0:38:35 view because the minute it's a
0:38:38 scientific explanation or a scientific
0:38:40 conclusion is the minute that it becomes
0:38:43 dependent because it's basically that
0:38:46 you can observe and we can only observe
0:38:47 limited physical qualities that's it
0:38:49 it's actually that simple so if people
0:38:51 say you've just made up the idea of
0:38:53 necessity just to squeeze God in as an
0:38:55 explanation no we haven't we've talked
0:38:57 about the idea that the universe is
0:38:59 dependent and we defined what that means
0:39:02 and everything within it is dependent
0:39:04 and we defined what dependent means and
0:39:06 then we've come to the conclusion that
0:39:07 the only thing to explain that
0:39:08 ultimately is a necessary independent
0:39:11 eternal being lo and behold that it is
0:39:14 in line with the Islamic conception of
0:39:16 God so we haven't made up necessity just
0:39:17 to prove God and plus necessity as a
0:39:20 concept exists in Western philosophy
0:39:22 anywhere especially in logic so it's not
0:39:24 a problem yeah we haven't made this term
0:39:26 up also if someone says well doesn't God
0:39:28 require explanation no because we just
0:39:31 discussed that God is the independent
0:39:34 necessary eternal being and by
0:39:35 definition necessary beings explain
0:39:39 themselves by virtue of their own
0:39:40 existence they don't require an
0:39:42 explanation external to themselves so
0:39:44 there you go job done