Ibn Taymiyyah & The Philosophers | Mohammed Hijab (2022-10-01) ​

0:00:08 welcome to the second session we'll be
0:00:10 exploring some theo philosophical issues
0:00:12 in fact we're going to go going into a
0:00:14 little bit more detail today on uh evan
0:00:18 tamiya and the hamburglar school and its
0:00:19 reaction particular to some of the
0:00:21 arguments for god's existence now why
0:00:23 this is important
0:00:24 uh is because obviously when we're using
0:00:27 arguments for god's existence we want to
0:00:28 be convinced that it's um you know it's
0:00:31 it's uh in line with the sunni like
0:00:34 orthodoxy
0:00:35 and as well as well as being voracious
0:00:38 so i'm going to be doing this with him
0:00:39 and tamiya and i'll be choosing an
0:00:41 ashrae scholar as well
0:00:43 who i think is going to be
0:00:46 because it makes sense that is him that
0:00:48 we do the same thing with in other words
0:00:49 we'll be looking at subjecting some of
0:00:51 the arguments of god's existence
0:00:54 to
0:00:55 some scrutiny but the scrutiny is not
0:00:57 from the atheistic interrogator this
0:00:59 time it's from
0:01:00 the theistic one
0:01:02 and so we'll start with the metemia and
0:01:04 we're going to be focusing in particular
0:01:06 on the issue of tarkip not least it's
0:01:08 because it actually has become somewhat
0:01:10 of a controversial topic
0:01:13 meaning composition it has become some
0:01:15 of our controversial topic especially
0:01:17 when there is arguments being made and
0:01:20 debates being had
0:01:22 in muslim people or theistic people and
0:01:25 atheistic people and it's important for
0:01:26 us to have this background so that i
0:01:29 don't for example or we don't as muslim
0:01:31 people when someone's put forward for a
0:01:33 debate
0:01:34 you know have all these attacks from our
0:01:36 own side which you know can be remedied
0:01:38 with some level of knowledge but also
0:01:41 because to be honest ebony mia has made
0:01:44 some really significant contributions
0:01:46 which tether and refine the argument
0:01:49 and he is
0:01:51 as you'll see scrupulously meticulous
0:01:54 imprecision
0:01:55 and
0:01:56 logical thought process so
0:01:59 we're going to be looking at
0:02:01 this might sound a bit overwhelming but
0:02:03 10 distinct parts 10 yes distinct parts
0:02:06 of him tamiya's
0:02:09 or
0:02:10 you know there's going to be 10 distinct
0:02:11 parts of this particular session
0:02:13 the first part
0:02:15 is going to be an interleaving
0:02:18 section where we're going to be
0:02:20 connecting the dots with the previous
0:02:21 session that we had
0:02:23 and i'm going to be asking you guys some
0:02:24 questions about the hamburlite
0:02:25 development
0:02:26 uh particularly when you say hamburlai i
0:02:28 also mean here the the selif if you like
0:02:30 and all these kind of things so i want
0:02:32 to open it to the floor actually with
0:02:34 the first question
0:02:35 um
0:02:37 considering what was discussed last week
0:02:41 in fact before we start uh is alidawah
0:02:44 on the phone someone call him yeah
0:02:46 yeah it's fine you can keep that in the
0:02:47 snowball let's call him because i want
0:02:49 to see if he can
0:02:50 i can answer this question as well
0:02:52 considering
0:02:54 that which was discussed last week
0:02:58 how would you characterize
0:03:03 creedal discussions in the early days
0:03:07 well how would you characterize it
0:03:10 we're talking about the first 200 years
0:03:12 let's say
0:03:13 so like 2 300 years of islam not a lot
0:03:16 of discussion on like
0:03:18 the attributes of god and
0:03:20 the intricacies of them is very just
0:03:22 like
0:03:23 everything's on the prima facie kind of
0:03:24 thing okay just affirmation
0:03:28 so when you say not a lot of discussion
0:03:29 we're talking here about more
0:03:30 speculative discussion you're not
0:03:31 speculative theology
0:03:33 so there was you could say it was
0:03:35 characterized by even uh imam malik
0:03:38 basically it's like the height you could
0:03:40 say that you got to yeah okay but how
0:03:42 would you how would you finish the
0:03:43 sentence the first two to three hundred
0:03:45 years of islam in crude oil discussions
0:03:47 was characterized by what what kind of
0:03:49 approach absolutely okay you can call it
0:03:52 another approach what else would you
0:03:53 call it
0:03:55 uh tradition okay great a scripturalist
0:03:57 approach a traditions approach that's
0:03:59 good this is the correct answer yeah so
0:04:01 in the beginning there wasn't really
0:04:02 this long discussions you know
0:04:04 about um you know the speculative
0:04:07 theology and so on my question then is
0:04:10 what changed
0:04:12 who what were some of the turning points
0:04:15 that changed this game in the situation
0:04:17 here last week but just guessing yeah
0:04:18 yeah it seems to me that after the
0:04:21 came and decided to say that the quran
0:04:23 was created
0:04:24 uh people who aversed to speculative
0:04:26 theology like him ahmed himself yeah
0:04:27 wrote books like uh
0:04:29 i think yeah and then he kind of used
0:04:31 the same quran that he was against
0:04:33 to
0:04:34 i think what he said was that it was
0:04:36 necessary for us to now defend and speak
0:04:39 about that which we were quiet about
0:04:41 earlier well i'm happy you mentioned
0:04:43 that quote and that's a that's a good
0:04:44 characterization because i'll mention
0:04:46 exactly what he said i have the exact
0:04:48 quotation in translation in fact
0:04:51 uh
0:04:52 it can be retrieved from
0:05:02 people to be silent as well as to leave
0:05:04 off any indulgence in qaram
0:05:07 or issues relating to the quran's nature
0:05:09 but when we were called upon to do so it
0:05:11 became necessary to treat these issues
0:05:13 in need of further elaboration
0:05:15 as you correctly said i mean if you look
0:05:18 at
0:05:18 you know his first
0:05:20 treatise if you like
0:05:24 for example there's a major development
0:05:26 there in terms of the argumentative
0:05:28 method you know how he's he's arguing
0:05:30 now and talking about tanakh and and
0:05:33 contradiction and bringing these other
0:05:35 precepts in
0:05:36 place obviously we must also warn that
0:05:39 there is some level of discussion about
0:05:41 the this the authorship is
0:05:45 attributed to
0:05:46 or is it not attributed to him but
0:05:48 that's that's a separate discussion we
0:05:50 know is that dademy he was one of the
0:05:52 students and who came after him he did
0:05:54 actually he went all out in terms of his
0:05:56 response to the martessila as you
0:05:58 mentioned after the greek translation
0:05:59 movement uh in terms of you know using
0:06:02 argumentatively speculative methods you
0:06:05 know
0:06:06 and so on
0:06:07 uh but there's maybe some figures before
0:06:10 the martessilla or even the
0:06:12 proto-martial
0:06:15 who were who are mentioned in these
0:06:17 discussions who
0:06:19 maybe came across but you mean in the
0:06:20 first so you say second century who who
0:06:22 who am i thinking about him
0:06:27 yeah yeah
0:06:28 and and
0:06:30 who i mentioned
0:06:32 this is
0:06:39 but do we have any works of jam
0:06:41 or jad
0:06:43 i mean yeah that's why some may be more
0:06:45 skeptical members of the
0:06:47 western academic tradition also the man
0:06:49 didn't even exist i mean
0:06:51 we don't have anything
0:06:53 written i mean you know funny enough you
0:06:55 know who mentioned this in in brackets
0:06:57 in one of his works
0:06:59 he mentioned like you know
0:07:01 he wrote his phd on this kind of things
0:07:03 and he said
0:07:04 if the man even existed i thought that's
0:07:06 all
0:07:08 so anyway the point is is
0:07:11 surely
0:07:13 there was a development here but who
0:07:14 else is who are some some figures that
0:07:16 we discussed last week last week
0:07:20 yes even collab was uh somebody who came
0:07:22 before after
0:07:25 before him and
0:07:27 he was seen as some kind of a precursor
0:07:28 was he not to a shady movement who else
0:07:31 was seen as a precursor like that to the
0:07:32 movement
0:07:34 yes
0:07:35 yes and um do we have any real works of
0:07:38 him collab
0:07:40 we don't have any works of him collab
0:07:42 just like we don't have any works of
0:07:43 dirham or german safwan
0:07:46 and so we are relegated to
0:07:48 heroes theological texts
0:07:50 and heroes theology is basically ferax
0:07:52 you know this question of when people
0:07:54 write about the
0:07:56 the other they write about them in
0:07:59 uh they are the heterodox and they are
0:08:01 the orthodox so obviously this is why
0:08:03 it's called teresyology but we only know
0:08:04 by these people from their opponents
0:08:06 basically if you want to put it in
0:08:08 in that way but what has to be on the
0:08:09 other hand actually we do have text from
0:08:10 him we have manuals and stuff like that
0:08:13 sophie you know
0:08:15 some some of his books out you know and
0:08:17 so on
0:08:18 okay uh so then there was the
0:08:20 development of the ashadi movement which
0:08:21 we will talk about again maybe about
0:08:24 which happened after that
0:08:26 now
0:08:27 let's move on to ebentamia now what what
0:08:29 is interesting about when we spoke about
0:08:31 this last week well let's bring it uh
0:08:34 back to the for
0:08:36 what is interesting about ibn tamiya
0:08:38 give me a couple of things that make him
0:08:39 an interesting figure
0:08:43 he was somebody yes
0:08:46 yeah somebody who give me something more
0:08:48 substantive than that
0:08:51 or is interesting about him
0:08:53 for humbly
0:08:55 so he did use the column yes um
0:08:59 and
0:09:00 he gives
0:09:05 he gives
0:09:07 so going back to the continuous argument
0:09:10 uh
0:09:11 his arguments
0:09:12 to explain
0:09:14 uh for instance the
0:09:17 opposition uh fallacy yeah
0:09:20 even though it was back in uh centuries
0:09:22 ago and that's something that nobody did
0:09:24 before him from the hamilton school
0:09:25 right yeah
0:09:26 even even the most liberal members you
0:09:27 know you don't see that they were doing
0:09:28 something like that right so he was more
0:09:31 inclined with the
0:09:32 uh use of the canon yeah absolutely this
0:09:35 is that's correct answer i mean that's
0:09:37 what really distinguished him from the
0:09:39 the other hanabila the other people from
0:09:41 the hamburglar method that he was
0:09:42 indulged really in this thing as we're
0:09:44 going to find out i mean and this is why
0:09:46 it's almost untenable the position that
0:09:47 some people have some
0:09:49 hardcore scripturalists which we respect
0:09:51 their opinion i mean if you want to say
0:09:52 that you know just
0:09:54 obviously keep to a scripturalist
0:09:56 understanding we expect the conservatism
0:09:58 of of those individuals however if they
0:10:00 want to use a brintamia it's really it's
0:10:02 impossible almost to use him uh as an
0:10:04 evidence for for that kind of
0:10:06 scripturalism because as
0:10:08 we've seen here like you know the man is
0:10:09 going into discussions which
0:10:12 really beyond his time before his time
0:10:14 like you know
0:10:15 he making statements and about uh the
0:10:18 universals will come to the
0:10:20 compositional fallacy as we come to
0:10:21 uh you know and so on
0:10:25 okay
0:10:26 um
0:10:27 now what is taqib like before we talk
0:10:30 about the issue of that kim because this
0:10:31 is something which all the schools of
0:10:33 thor had some discussion about because
0:10:35 obviously
0:10:36 it's not just applicable to the
0:10:38 arguments for god's existence it's
0:10:39 actually applicable to god's attributes
0:10:40 as well so that's why there's a deep
0:10:42 intersectionality between
0:10:44 those two camps you know god's
0:10:46 attributes or the theological camp and
0:10:47 also the if you like the philosophical
0:10:50 camps so what what is tech how would you
0:10:52 understand what is taking exactly
0:10:54 uh
0:10:55 um yes go ahead tell us
0:10:58 direct translation would be composition
0:11:00 yes uh
0:11:02 so
0:11:04 i think it's pretty self-explanatory
0:11:06 right what uh what makes up something uh
0:11:09 in terms of attributes yeah in terms of
0:11:12 attributes of what makes makes up
0:11:13 something that's physical
0:11:15 non-physical attributes right okay so
0:11:16 what was even samia's gripe with uh use
0:11:19 uses of technique to keep argument by
0:11:21 cena yeah he he
0:11:23 he pointed out that
0:11:25 ibnecina's argument
0:11:27 for god's existence denies uh god's
0:11:30 attributes uh
0:11:31 so it does making like abrahamic
0:11:34 conceptions of god
0:11:35 untenable
0:11:37 beautiful excellent that's really well
0:11:38 put i'm happy with that that was a
0:11:40 correct answer in fact uh let's be more
0:11:42 specific here since you've given the
0:11:44 correct answer i will give you a little
0:11:46 bit more
0:11:47 uh
0:11:48 when it when it comes to this
0:11:50 in fact
0:11:53 before before i give you
0:11:54 maybe answer
0:11:56 let's talk about what even cena first
0:11:58 said so let's let's remind ourselves of
0:12:00 even sinister
0:12:02 you know you wouldn't see this bullhorn
0:12:04 argument or the contingency of god's
0:12:06 existence
0:12:07 you know an important aspect of it
0:12:10 which
0:12:11 uh
0:12:12 dealt with the objection of the
0:12:13 contingency of the universe is to keep
0:12:16 okay and obviously it's important
0:12:18 because
0:12:18 like the question is it's always going
0:12:20 to come to you why is the universe
0:12:23 not the necessary existence this is the
0:12:25 question that why is the universe not
0:12:27 the necessary existence why is the
0:12:28 multiverse not the necessary existence
0:12:31 because we're saying it has to be a
0:12:32 necessary existence yeah
0:12:34 so the question now is the atheists will
0:12:36 say okay why is it not the universe
0:12:38 itself why is it not the multiverse
0:12:39 you've got maybe
0:12:40 an infinite multiverse a limited
0:12:42 multiverse
0:12:44 so this is what i've been seeing that
0:12:45 saying he says that
0:12:47 and this is a translation it's not my
0:12:48 own
0:12:50 the book remarks and admonitions physics
0:12:52 and metaphysics
0:12:54 analysis and annotated translation
0:12:56 every cause of a totality that is
0:12:58 something other than its units first of
0:13:00 all
0:13:01 a cause of the units and then the
0:13:02 totality
0:13:04 okay
0:13:05 if this is so then let the units not be
0:13:07 in need of this cause then if the
0:13:08 totality is completed by its units
0:13:11 it will not need this cause either
0:13:13 rather a certain thing may be a cause of
0:13:16 some of the of the units
0:13:18 of the exclusion of some other others
0:13:21 such a thing is not the cause of the
0:13:23 totality in an absolute manner
0:13:25 if the essence of that whose existence
0:13:27 is necessary is composed of two or more
0:13:29 things that unite
0:13:31 it becomes necessary by them
0:13:33 one of these things or every one of them
0:13:36 will be prior to it and constituent
0:13:39 of it
0:13:40 therefore
0:13:41 that whose existence is necessary is
0:13:44 indivisible whether in concept or in
0:13:46 quantity so this is where
0:13:49 you know even tamiya will say we have an
0:13:50 in concept
0:13:51 hold on a minute what do you mean by
0:13:53 that yeah
0:13:54 or whether in concept or in quantity
0:13:57 everything whose existence is dependent
0:13:59 on a sensible body is necessitated by
0:14:03 that body and not by its own essence
0:14:06 every sensible body multiplies into
0:14:08 matter and form by quantitative division
0:14:11 and by conceptual division
0:14:13 again for every single for every
0:14:15 sensible body you will find another body
0:14:17 of its species
0:14:19 species he has like gins in arabic
0:14:22 or of another species it's not like
0:14:23 animals it's like you know the giraffe
0:14:25 and this and it's just in case
0:14:27 this is a specialized philosophical
0:14:29 jargon yeah if considered in relation to
0:14:31 its corporeality
0:14:35 thus every sensible body and everything
0:14:36 dependent on it is caused
0:14:40 uh shekhar what is he saying here
0:14:44 do you need a minute to think about it
0:14:48 is he basically saying that because i
0:14:49 know it's a bit of a mouthful yeah
0:14:50 that's right
0:14:52 anything which is composed of parts
0:14:55 basically is dependent
0:14:57 and
0:14:57 in the that paragraph that you read out
0:15:00 he goes on to kind of
0:15:02 explain the different ways that is so
0:15:04 that's a good way of doing it
0:15:05 uh yes obviously he's making a
0:15:07 cause-based argument here
0:15:09 the way we've refined it from the
0:15:10 institute here is that we've said that
0:15:12 it doesn't have to be a course based
0:15:13 argument
0:15:14 if we stuck to the strict
0:15:16 avicennian model
0:15:18 it would be a cause-based argument for
0:15:20 sure
0:15:21 but uh
0:15:23 he has made a cause-based argument
0:15:26 and he's clearly made a lot of
0:15:28 postulations now
0:15:30 let's go straight into ibn tamiya's
0:15:33 problem with it
0:15:34 and you'll find this even tell me his
0:15:36 issue with it
0:15:37 in a safari page 105 of the
0:15:40 i don't know what edition which you're
0:15:41 talking about here we'll maybe bring in
0:15:43 something beirut edition yeah muhammad
0:15:46 rashad salem edition
0:15:48 yeah 1985
0:15:51 page 105. so he he's saying on this
0:15:54 he is saying in samia
0:15:58 that there are five different ways that
0:15:59 taqib can be
0:16:01 exhaustibly identified
0:16:04 there's five different ways you can
0:16:06 think of composition
0:16:08 one of those ways
0:16:09 is
0:16:10 with liquidity
0:16:12 or another one is
0:16:15 general specific
0:16:18 ginsenoa these are all subdivisions like
0:16:20 a category and a subcategory
0:16:22 and i'll i'll under i'll make you
0:16:24 understand what this is that unciphat
0:16:26 the essence and the attributes of
0:16:27 something numerical multiplicity like
0:16:30 chem
0:16:32 and then he says as for anything
0:16:33 possessive of material form then it is
0:16:35 also taqib and these are the fourth and
0:16:37 fifth types
0:16:39 so we don't need to actually go into
0:16:40 detail as to all these things because it
0:16:42 would actually require some level of
0:16:44 logical background in arabic logic there
0:16:46 are these five coulee ethercamps
0:16:48 they're the five
0:16:49 universal things you know the gins the
0:16:52 noah the fossil
0:16:53 uh and wealth
0:16:55 no no
0:16:57 the the the
0:17:01 uh
0:17:11 myself right
0:17:13 that's what i was actually asking but
0:17:14 these uh these like the the gins is
0:17:16 the category the kulia the colliers are
0:17:19 the universals yeah there are five
0:17:20 universals someone can bring out would
0:17:22 be good actually
0:17:23 uh
0:17:25 actually i got it here i've got it in my
0:17:27 own writing you've got the gins the
0:17:28 genus the fossil the
0:17:30 specific difference there no other
0:17:31 species the arab the accident
0:17:34 and the hassa which is the property
0:17:37 when they say accident yeah in the yani
0:17:40 it's not like an accident like cars
0:17:41 smashing on each other
0:17:43 and an arad is basically something which
0:17:45 is real
0:17:47 and that is something which is
0:17:49 which i'll tell you what this means
0:17:52 no let me explain right so
0:17:55 a
0:17:56 an essence is something which is
0:17:58 subsistent within itself
0:18:01 where an accident or arad is something
0:18:03 which is not like for example a color
0:18:06 like red the red color this red color
0:18:08 yeah
0:18:09 redness is not something which exists in
0:18:11 of itself it has to have some object
0:18:13 which it inherits in in order to
0:18:15 instantiate
0:18:17 um
0:18:20 yeah yeah you can say so but they don't
0:18:22 translate it like this they translate as
0:18:24 accident i don't for some reason almost
0:18:26 everyone has agreed to this translation
0:18:28 in the philosophy of religion they
0:18:29 translate it as accident now why have
0:18:31 they translated as that i don't know
0:18:33 yeah but that is what a heart of this
0:18:36 okay
0:18:36 so as that is something which is
0:18:38 obviously the opposite of allah in a
0:18:39 sense that that an essence is something
0:18:41 which
0:18:42 exists in and of itself it does not
0:18:44 require something else to
0:18:46 to inherit within it in order to exist
0:18:50 yeah
0:18:51 so basically
0:18:53 if yani
0:18:54 is
0:18:55 and this is based on artillery and logic
0:18:57 yeah this is based on ours this this
0:18:59 this characterization the five thing is
0:19:02 based on the organelle and all these
0:19:03 kind of things based on logic
0:19:05 but the arabs took it on board and they
0:19:07 basically made something up and that
0:19:08 almost every logical textbook
0:19:13 and all that you'll find these five
0:19:14 there it's like you know it's very
0:19:16 important
0:19:17 thing
0:19:21 now
0:19:22 in terms of for example just to break
0:19:24 things up down for you
0:19:28 and this was in the aristotelian or the
0:19:30 hellenistic period but also it's in the
0:19:31 uh arab logic or whatever islamic logic
0:19:36 but it's written arabic and sometimes
0:19:37 persian as well these two languages
0:19:39 the written languages right
0:19:41 so in the islamicate
0:19:43 period whereas mostly written arabic and
0:19:46 persian
0:19:48 it would be
0:19:50 for
0:19:50 example uh that they would use the
0:19:52 example of the speaking and or the
0:19:54 rational animal al hayward
0:19:56 human being
0:19:57 is haiwan is an animal
0:20:00 yes
0:20:01 but it's also a rational act what
0:20:03 differentiates the human
0:20:05 from all the other species in this in
0:20:07 this sense i mean actual animals
0:20:09 all the other animals is his ration his
0:20:11 rationality the ability to
0:20:13 introspect his ask why
0:20:15 you know moral eyes and all these kind
0:20:17 of things
0:20:18 that's what differentiates a human being
0:20:19 from everything else yeah all the other
0:20:22 animals
0:20:23 so this so the the category is
0:20:26 that the main category is
0:20:28 haiwan
0:20:29 which is that who we are
0:20:31 in a ma in a category of haiwan
0:20:34 and the sub category is
0:20:38 which is that he is the rational one
0:20:40 so this is actually a construct he's
0:20:42 saying it's a construct
0:20:44 and damian is saying
0:20:45 well i'm not even the logicians would
0:20:47 say this is a construct we are a
0:20:49 construct of two things fundamentally
0:20:51 human beings are two things
0:20:52 fundamentally
0:20:54 they're human
0:20:56 oh sorry they are an animal yes and they
0:20:58 are rational and so this is a kind of
0:20:59 turkey
0:21:00 you understand this is a kind of
0:21:01 composition do you get it
0:21:03 even samia's saying yeah this is a
0:21:05 composition it's true but it has no
0:21:06 bearing on real life
0:21:09 it's only something which is composed in
0:21:12 your mind
0:21:13 it's like if i say think of a golden
0:21:15 mountain yani if you're thinking of a
0:21:17 golden mountain right now which is
0:21:19 probably something which is cannot
0:21:20 escape your mind right
0:21:22 if i say don't think of something yeah
0:21:24 and you'll think about even more think
0:21:26 don't think of a pink elephant
0:21:28 all you guys are thinking about pink
0:21:29 elephant is what you're thinking about
0:21:31 but it doesn't exist in the real world i
0:21:32 mean unless someone has put
0:21:34 pink paint on an elephant
0:21:37 or it has
0:21:38 some kind of disease on its skin
0:21:40 but i've never seen a pink elephant
0:21:42 you know
0:21:43 just because
0:21:45 you can think about it it doesn't mean
0:21:46 it exists that's what matami is saying
0:21:47 he's saying this
0:21:49 although mentally legitimate okay we're
0:21:51 not saying it doesn't exist in your mind
0:21:52 he's saying it doesn't there's no
0:21:54 actually such a thing as that yani in
0:21:56 the real world
0:21:57 so when you're saying that human being
0:21:58 is a rational animal
0:22:00 that's you're you're constructing these
0:22:01 two things together in your own mind but
0:22:03 it's not something which shani has any
0:22:05 bearing on any real world danny
0:22:07 situation do you see this and he goes in
0:22:10 in likewise format with all of these
0:22:12 different things so like for example
0:22:13 that was
0:22:16 or you said noah right but then he can
0:22:18 say the same thing applies with that and
0:22:20 sifat what is the actual
0:22:23 because one of the one of the criticisms
0:22:24 of the philosopher is that oh and the
0:22:26 more tesla actually as well is that you
0:22:27 cannot have to add
0:22:30 you cannot have um
0:22:32 many essences
0:22:34 so they ask the question
0:22:36 god is made up of so many attributes
0:22:38 right
0:22:39 he is al-rahman he is al-rahim he is
0:22:41 al-kawii he is
0:22:43 he has all of these things he is the
0:22:45 most powerful one he is the most
0:22:46 merciful one in all these things
0:22:48 but they say this is a kind of disguised
0:22:50 polytheism i mean that's how far they're
0:22:52 going when this is allah saying this is
0:22:54 what you talk about many gods a pantheon
0:22:56 of gods in one actually that's what
0:22:58 you're talking about but tamiya is
0:22:59 saying the only reason why you've come
0:23:01 to that conclusion yes
0:23:03 is because you've given each of those
0:23:05 attributes in essence
0:23:08 you see
0:23:09 he's saying that
0:23:10 really these attributes are they're not
0:23:12 all of these it's not pantheon of
0:23:14 different essences with their own will
0:23:16 and
0:23:17 center of consciousness coming together
0:23:18 he's saying therefore you're confusing
0:23:20 the categories here the reason why
0:23:22 you've decided to negate the attributes
0:23:25 of god is because you have
0:23:27 misconceptualized in the first instance
0:23:29 what this idea of taqib is so he was
0:23:31 very staunch against this point he said
0:23:33 you can't have this kind of turkey
0:23:36 you've already missed you'd have to
0:23:38 first anthropomorphize
0:23:40 the attributes of god
0:23:42 in order to there thereafter negate them
0:23:44 like that and this is a very legitimate
0:23:47 concern
0:23:48 i mean this is a problem if if
0:23:50 if one is saying
0:23:52 that the equivalent of things which are
0:23:55 made up of
0:23:56 pieces and stuff or which which he's
0:23:58 going to tell us what the the right way
0:24:00 is yeah but um
0:24:03 or something which is material and
0:24:04 susceptible to dissembly yeah
0:24:07 the equivalent of that is is like the
0:24:09 conceptual adding together of different
0:24:11 concepts if you're saying if you're
0:24:12 putting these two things on the same
0:24:14 level ontological status then here you
0:24:16 have an issue so he doesn't he doesn't
0:24:19 throw the baby with the bath water out
0:24:21 which is why
0:24:23 he says the following he says this is
0:24:24 the only legitimate type of keep
0:24:27 composition he says
0:24:29 and the phrase molecular composition is
0:24:30 meant to signify that was something else
0:24:32 has put together namely the being whose
0:24:35 parts were separated and then put
0:24:36 together or that which is susceptible to
0:24:38 dissembly
0:24:40 disassembly yeah this is what he's
0:24:41 saying and he mentions
0:24:44 page 116 yeah
0:24:46 and then he goes on to further say it
0:24:48 could be said that the intended meaning
0:24:50 of the phrase that keep is that there
0:24:52 are two parts which are separated and
0:24:54 then some composing agent appears to
0:24:56 have put them together which explains
0:24:58 why the term moroccan is passive
0:25:00 participants
0:25:02 this is just as food is made up of
0:25:03 various shares and portions garments
0:25:06 consist
0:25:07 segments of cloth medicines attain their
0:25:09 function from the various ingredients
0:25:11 and the like and this is also mentioned
0:25:12 in shorthand page hundred and twenty 171
0:25:17 so he's saying that basically for him
0:25:19 therefore the kind of taqib
0:25:22 which is acceptable
0:25:24 is only one kind
0:25:26 and that is something which is
0:25:28 susceptible to disassembly
0:25:31 that you can remove from it it's
0:25:32 susceptible to additional subtraction on
0:25:35 an empirical level
0:25:37 if something
0:25:38 can you can take away from it and put
0:25:40 put into it on an empirical level this
0:25:43 is
0:25:44 uh something which is moroccan is
0:25:46 composed
0:25:48 yeah so
0:25:49 if someone there is this is not he's not
0:25:51 saying this himself he's not making the
0:25:52 argument but if i were to make the
0:25:53 argument there which we do make anything
0:25:55 made up of composed parts and by that we
0:25:58 mean
0:25:59 think something which is
0:26:00 susceptible to disassembly
0:26:03 if something is made up of therefore
0:26:04 that thing is contingent the universe is
0:26:06 made up of
0:26:08 of that
0:26:09 of uh pieces or composed parts
0:26:12 therefore it's it's contingent nanny
0:26:14 that this wouldn't go against him yeah
0:26:16 do you see the point here they tell me
0:26:18 they're saying actually this the only
0:26:19 problem i have is the problem with
0:26:22 a composition of different attitude
0:26:23 attributes and and if you're if you're
0:26:25 using the conceptual
0:26:27 not this definition in fact he's the one
0:26:29 who offers this definition
0:26:32 so a lot of what we're seeing today is a
0:26:33 lot of people come and say well you
0:26:34 shouldn't use this argument because it
0:26:36 goes it will literally it will lead to
0:26:38 negating their
0:26:39 attributes
0:26:41 we say only can lead
0:26:44 to negating the attributes if what for
0:26:46 the first definition
0:26:48 if we go for any of the other
0:26:49 definitions
0:26:50 other than even tell me his definition
0:26:53 which is what
0:26:54 that
0:26:55 uh
0:26:57 some
0:26:58 kid is something that is subject to
0:26:59 disassembly yeah
0:27:01 or
0:27:02 uh
0:27:03 take out yeah yeah beautiful okay that's
0:27:05 it so after you've identified it
0:27:08 yeah then that's it it's done
0:27:10 then the then the atheist interlocus
0:27:12 announced to come and say why the
0:27:13 universe
0:27:15 despite being susceptible to injection
0:27:17 or let's just call it uh additional
0:27:19 subtraction yeah
0:27:20 despite having this thing or being made
0:27:23 composed of different parts which are
0:27:25 susceptible such thing
0:27:27 why is it
0:27:28 that it can still be seen as
0:27:32 necessary you see the point yeah
0:27:37 okay
0:27:38 any questions so far because i know
0:27:39 we're kind of moving quick quickly
0:27:41 uh you said that this this
0:27:44 is anything which is susceptible to the
0:27:46 composition on an empirical level right
0:27:48 yeah so if an atheist is disabled they
0:27:50 take the universe for instance we don't
0:27:52 have any empirical evidence that you can
0:27:55 subtract from the universe or take
0:27:56 something out of the universe
0:27:59 yeah i mean we don't need to show that
0:28:02 is saying that if it's conceivable
0:28:05 that and he does say if it's conceivable
0:28:07 he said even even if you don't see it
0:28:11 he may mention that
0:28:13 yeah he says even if it's conceivable
0:28:15 that this thing which is an object you
0:28:16 can take something out of it and put
0:28:18 into it even if you have witnessed such
0:28:20 a thing
0:28:21 then the thing is uh composed
0:28:24 but that's what matami is saying i'm
0:28:26 saying that ibn cena or the original
0:28:27 argument says anything that is made up
0:28:29 of our parts
0:28:31 we've refined what we mean by parts now
0:28:33 yeah anything which is made out of parts
0:28:35 is contingent the universe is made out
0:28:36 of parts we don't need to prove that the
0:28:39 universe you can take things out and put
0:28:40 things in
0:28:42 all we need to show is that the universe
0:28:43 is made out of parts which is
0:28:45 indupitable no one can it's
0:28:46 incontrovertible
0:28:48 no one can say well the universe is not
0:28:49 made out of parts if you say well the
0:28:51 the multiverse is not made out of parts
0:28:53 well what differentiate how could it be
0:28:54 a multiverse you're using the word multi
0:28:56 anyway how could it be a multiverse if
0:28:58 it's not more than one universe
0:29:00 so each v each universe is a part of the
0:29:03 multiverse
0:29:04 and it's not just any part it's a part
0:29:06 that could otherwise not be in there
0:29:07 even if we didn't witness that
0:29:09 so to entertain me this would not be
0:29:11 this would not be an issue
0:29:14 yes oh was one of the main reasons why
0:29:16 even singing i was making this argument
0:29:17 is because he believed in universes
0:29:21 um because if he didn't would you have
0:29:23 for something like that the thing is to
0:29:25 be honest we'll come to we'll actually
0:29:26 come to the idea of even tamiyas and i
0:29:28 do believe it's problematic and i have
0:29:30 to be honest with you like you don't
0:29:31 have to agree or disagree with me here
0:29:32 but
0:29:34 his his objections on this whole
0:29:36 universal thing
0:29:37 and we have to ask ourselves to what
0:29:39 extent
0:29:40 can he remain consistent with this
0:29:43 this is the question how to what extent
0:29:45 can it be i remain consistent with this
0:29:48 we'll see what i mean by that but
0:29:50 the this idea of uh denying of the
0:29:52 universals is not something you find
0:29:53 from the salaf
0:29:54 i mean you will not find a lalaka and
0:29:56 bhatta in his kitab saying and we deny
0:29:58 the universals like you will not find
0:30:00 this or at the hau is creed saying yes
0:30:02 and we deny the coulee
0:30:04 it's impossible to find such a thing
0:30:06 it's not there it just doesn't exist and
0:30:08 so we have like i said before if someone
0:30:10 takes a different opinion
0:30:12 to even tell me on his theo
0:30:13 philosophical renderings it doesn't mean
0:30:15 anything it just means that you disagree
0:30:17 with him philosophically on an issue
0:30:19 which that has not actually spoken about
0:30:20 explicitly and that is the reality of
0:30:22 the situation and that's why i was
0:30:23 saying last week that ibn tamiya does
0:30:26 not represent
0:30:28 all of his positions are not not they
0:30:30 are not an imitation of what the self
0:30:32 said he has expanded i'm not saying he's
0:30:34 going against them but he says things
0:30:36 that they never said
0:30:38 that's that is a fact and no one can
0:30:40 deny that fact only somebody who is
0:30:43 uh
0:30:44 maybe a liar or
0:30:48 you know or something like this yeah
0:30:51 okay so we we've covered the following
0:30:53 we talked about the humbly development
0:30:55 okay of the
0:30:57 of creed and stuff like that what kind
0:30:59 of developments there are and then we
0:31:00 talked about even tamiya and his
0:31:01 importance and we talked about the issue
0:31:03 of turkey and we talked about even
0:31:05 tamiya's prime objection which is one to
0:31:07 do with with the with the attributes of
0:31:09 god
0:31:11 and now
0:31:12 we will talk
0:31:14 about ibn and we talked about
0:31:15 entertainment solution
0:31:17 and then there was this discussions
0:31:18 about his general epistemology
0:31:21 so
0:31:23 let me read something okay to explain to
0:31:26 you his general epistemology okay from
0:31:27 his works which i've translated myself
0:31:30 and this is uh
0:31:32 in
0:31:33 this once again yeah and you'll find
0:31:35 that a lot of these things are intimated
0:31:38 in swahili
0:31:40 is and it's a very short book which
0:31:42 we're translating by the way you know
0:31:44 the sapiens institute is uh translating
0:31:47 that book and another book of mutation
0:31:48 because as we said this is quite
0:31:50 important yeah
0:31:53 he says and it is known that the
0:31:55 composing in this regard and by
0:31:58 this regard he means something being
0:32:00 susceptible to disassembly yeah
0:32:02 it's dependent on something other than
0:32:04 itself
0:32:05 that is
0:32:06 if its essence entails composition such
0:32:09 that separation would not be possible
0:32:10 for it
0:32:11 and the necessary existence can er
0:32:13 necessary existence cannot be dependent
0:32:15 on anything external to itself
0:32:17 as would be contradiction and that would
0:32:19 be contradictory
0:32:20 there is no doubt that those who affirm
0:32:22 the attributes of god or any other
0:32:24 muslim group
0:32:25 reject this type of composition relation
0:32:26 to god
0:32:29 is saying this kind of composition in
0:32:31 relation to god
0:32:32 every muslim group reject it
0:32:35 this is ibrahimi is saying this just
0:32:36 just in case because some say well you
0:32:38 are going
0:32:41 this this is telling actually because
0:32:42 even tamiya is actually
0:32:44 referencing other groups even though
0:32:45 he's polemical towards them but he's
0:32:47 showing look all of us agree here
0:32:50 the ashadis agree their maturities agree
0:32:52 everyone agrees we all agree
0:32:54 that this kind of composition is not um
0:32:56 allowed
0:32:57 despite this fact the pseudo
0:32:58 philosophers and by that he means the
0:33:00 actual philosophers but he's he's
0:33:02 humiliating them you know and sometimes
0:33:04 he does and he doesn't give he doesn't
0:33:06 give him credit i mean it's not like he
0:33:08 doesn't give them credit he does he does
0:33:09 accept you know that they are right on
0:33:11 some issues but he never praises them i
0:33:13 don't think i've ever seen anything
0:33:14 praising even cena of those guys he
0:33:16 praises razali all the time
0:33:18 and like we said last week you know he
0:33:19 will say about him
0:33:21 islam or he will refer to a father and
0:33:24 all these kinds of terms he he praises
0:33:26 his but he has his limits
0:33:29 eventually has the limits here
0:33:31 refer to the attributes of god as a kind
0:33:32 of composition whereby they claim that
0:33:35 the human is composed of genus and a
0:33:36 specific difference and we talked about
0:33:38 that the rational human they're saying
0:33:40 look at this the construction rational
0:33:41 human that's what he's talking about
0:33:42 here he says
0:33:44 through the use of terms like animality
0:33:46 and capacity to reason they assign the
0:33:48 meanings of atoms and accidents to the
0:33:49 human constitution
0:33:51 if they deduce from this definition that
0:33:53 the human being is composed of atoms
0:33:55 then there is nothing in the description
0:33:57 of rational animal which warrants this
0:33:59 meaning or indicates the accidentality
0:34:01 of these values
0:34:02 the meaning embedded in the definition
0:34:04 of rational animal are confined to the
0:34:05 mental process once again it's a
0:34:07 conceptualist at the critique here
0:34:10 such that one imagines rationalization a
0:34:12 pure form and an animal and in a pure
0:34:14 form and obviously puts them together
0:34:15 right however the mere fact that this
0:34:17 can be done in the mind does not mean
0:34:19 that the external realm that these three
0:34:21 types of substance exist can be found
0:34:25 and
0:34:25 knowledge of this is foundational
0:34:29 and this is basically an anti-idealist
0:34:31 stance clearly like you know is almost
0:34:34 what you would see from a materialist to
0:34:35 an idealist in substance theory
0:34:38 um so here he's saying
0:34:40 he's saying look his general
0:34:42 epistemology
0:34:44 he's saying if something cannot and he
0:34:45 says this explicitly and i should bring
0:34:47 this up
0:34:48 he mentions if something cannot it's not
0:34:50 susceptible to arad or johar
0:34:53 and he mentions that again in the
0:34:56 swahili if something is not
0:34:58 cannot
0:34:59 now we've said is something which is
0:35:01 accident like a color
0:35:03 and johar
0:35:04 is something which is indivisible
0:35:07 a johar fart is an invisible atom
0:35:09 indivisible atom
0:35:11 so johar
0:35:13 is something which something in here is
0:35:14 in
0:35:15 so something which is like the
0:35:17 broken down it's a physical thing
0:35:19 so he it would tell me they're saying if
0:35:20 something is not an accident such that
0:35:22 in here's in atoms
0:35:24 or the simples call them symbols call
0:35:26 them whatever you like yeah things that
0:35:28 are broken down into little pieces of
0:35:30 remember is the indivisible atom
0:35:32 so if something does not break down into
0:35:33 those two different types then it
0:35:35 doesn't really exist
0:35:37 well the question is if
0:35:39 can we subject allah subhanallah to such
0:35:41 a test
0:35:42 this will be the response you're saying
0:35:44 that something is there's a johar test
0:35:46 johar no he's asking the question he
0:35:48 would tell me
0:35:50 is this thing that you're talking about
0:35:52 is it johar say no it's not
0:35:55 is it
0:35:56 is it an accident no it's not an
0:35:57 accident so what is it
0:35:58 so we say okay no problem we agree
0:36:01 but the question is can you can you
0:36:04 subject allah and his attributes to this
0:36:06 test
0:36:07 how do you think he responds i'll tell
0:36:09 you how i respond because i was trying
0:36:10 to find the response and i looked you
0:36:12 know left and right and asked some
0:36:14 people of knowledge and this and that
0:36:16 and i found the response
0:36:18 and this actually in
0:36:21 actually in
0:36:22 the month
0:36:23 he mentions this and
0:36:25 actually translates this book it's
0:36:26 called the response to the greek
0:36:28 logicians
0:36:29 and by the way the word greek is not
0:36:30 their own original title maybe that's
0:36:32 how some of these brothers from the
0:36:33 salafis
0:36:34 agra they think that's everything is all
0:36:36 the logic is greek no it's not some
0:36:38 logic is not greek you know somebody's
0:36:39 greek some is not anyways it's a
0:36:41 separate topic
0:36:42 uh
0:36:44 he states
0:36:45 he eventually has this conception of
0:36:48 al barteny
0:36:51 okay
0:36:53 so
0:36:53 well halaq
0:36:56 you'll be surprised because you know
0:36:57 he's written political issues and stuff
0:36:59 like that the impossible state and all
0:37:00 that he's christian he's not muslim by
0:37:02 the way yeah
0:37:03 but he um i don't even know if he's
0:37:04 christian he's definitely muslim
0:37:07 well halaq
0:37:09 he he considers him he refers to him as
0:37:11 an empiricist and i think this is too
0:37:13 strong because how can you be a muslim
0:37:14 empiricist like what do you mean by
0:37:16 empiricist
0:37:17 really the the most you can say is that
0:37:19 he's he is anti-idealist yani but he's
0:37:22 not an empiricist in that sense
0:37:24 but
0:37:28 mentions
0:37:29 i can actually read what he says because
0:37:31 i think it's somewhat important yeah he
0:37:32 says imitate me i held that universals
0:37:34 can never exist in the extra mental
0:37:37 world
0:37:38 but only in the mind in in the
0:37:40 experimental world only individuated
0:37:42 particulars exist
0:37:44 particulars that are specific distinct
0:37:46 and unique
0:37:47 in fact
0:37:48 in in fact external individuals are so
0:37:50 unique in matamia argues that they
0:37:53 cannot allow for a formation of external
0:37:56 universal
0:37:58 uh i think i've read that wrong which
0:38:00 are subsumed
0:38:02 but these individuals
0:38:04 but these individuals there can be only
0:38:07 an aspect or aspects of similarity but
0:38:09 they cannot be entirely identical from
0:38:11 this have been tamiya concludes that the
0:38:12 universality of the genus the species
0:38:14 species and difference cannot be
0:38:17 uh the essence
0:38:19 for the unit he's saying that an essence
0:38:21 has to be because that has to be
0:38:24 you know it has to subsist in and of
0:38:26 itself
0:38:27 but he's saying if it's
0:38:28 if if it's in the mind then it's not
0:38:30 quite
0:38:31 it's in the mind this is
0:38:33 so for the universal nothing is more
0:38:35 than a common general meaning and that
0:38:36 the mind retains to signify individuals
0:38:39 in the real world
0:38:44 now
0:38:46 it will tell me you're saying there are
0:38:48 some things
0:38:50 that are just in hustle botany like for
0:38:52 example your emotions anger
0:38:54 your love
0:38:55 pleasure pain all of that stuff
0:38:58 it's
0:38:59 a first person subjective experience
0:39:01 yeah and he's saying yeah we accept that
0:39:03 and then he he'll relegate the fitrah to
0:39:06 this
0:39:06 so the way to
0:39:08 to because you know he said
0:39:09 test yeah
0:39:11 he got the arnold
0:39:14 is this thing whatever it is that you
0:39:15 it's universal that you're speaking
0:39:16 about is
0:39:18 it an accident
0:39:19 no it's not
0:39:20 an accident is it a johar is it made up
0:39:23 of atoms or something
0:39:25 yes or let's call it a substrate or
0:39:29 substance let's just call it substance
0:39:32 is it a substance no is it an accident
0:39:35 no so it doesn't exist okay
0:39:38 what would make you say of anger
0:39:40 jealousy whatever all these emotions he
0:39:41 said that's in the hessian botany
0:39:43 so he's got something in his personality
0:39:45 for that which is
0:39:46 the the internal emotions and the fitra
0:39:48 is there and therefore knowledge of
0:39:50 allah can be detected from the fitra and
0:39:52 that's how you understand allah
0:39:54 but then the question will be then
0:39:58 well just as much as you can you can
0:40:00 feel the
0:40:02 jealousy and the anger and all these
0:40:03 kind of things
0:40:05 these are universal categories in a
0:40:07 sense
0:40:08 can you not is it is it incredulous for
0:40:10 someone to say that well
0:40:12 um you can feel uh
0:40:15 universals
0:40:18 how can you deny that
0:40:20 well you can deny that in as much the
0:40:21 same way as someone can deny your
0:40:24 from a demonstrative perspective
0:40:26 like if we're talking third person
0:40:27 demonstration
0:40:29 and that's what
0:40:30 attacks him on actually he makes a whole
0:40:32 thing to attack anyone this
0:40:33 uh so
0:40:35 if you're saying well um
0:40:37 my father is i believe in god i believe
0:40:39 i was what i feel have got well someone
0:40:41 could say i believe in whatever put put
0:40:43 in the blanks universal and then that's
0:40:44 it
0:40:46 so
0:40:46 it seems to me that that there's an
0:40:48 issue here which if there are is a price
0:40:51 to pay there is an epistemological
0:40:54 price to pay for
0:40:56 for taking the conceptualist position
0:40:57 yeah yeah what are the um
0:41:00 accepting universes like why was he
0:41:02 running away from that
0:41:04 i can't speculate but if i had to have a
0:41:06 guess
0:41:08 i think he's just trying to like that
0:41:10 like this might sound quite crude crash
0:41:12 yeah
0:41:13 but
0:41:14 if you're asking me it's an opinion now
0:41:16 pure opinion no problem yeah
0:41:18 i personally believe it been telling me
0:41:19 i was trying to cut all the roots
0:41:21 to a negative outcome like for example
0:41:23 you know this whole thing where he
0:41:24 believes there's no metaphor in the
0:41:25 quran
0:41:27 which not but basically even had ability
0:41:29 except that yeah except for his
0:41:30 disciples
0:41:32 and so on but other yani it's not it's
0:41:34 not a really popular opinion among the
0:41:36 grammarians for example like there's no
0:41:40 why do you think he's doing that i think
0:41:42 the reason why he's doing that so people
0:41:43 say well if there's no method from the
0:41:44 quran how can you metaphorize the names
0:41:46 and attributes of god if there's nobody
0:41:48 you see
0:41:49 and likewise for my this is i think it's
0:41:51 just it's just a trend of
0:41:53 how he deals with things he rips things
0:41:55 from the roots he uproots things
0:41:58 he that he doesn't he doesn't like just
0:41:59 demolishing something
0:42:01 if you don't like cutting down trees he
0:42:02 likes going in and taking the roux out
0:42:04 and
0:42:04 you know destroying everything
0:42:07 and so in this sense i think he's done
0:42:08 the same thing i think he's he's
0:42:10 uh said you know these people are
0:42:13 basically this philosopher this martessa
0:42:15 are using tarkib and they are using
0:42:18 specific specification or
0:42:20 particularization they're using these
0:42:21 things so that they can come to a
0:42:23 conclusion of nephew's effect from a
0:42:24 logical perspective so what i'm going to
0:42:26 do is i'm going to annihilate any
0:42:28 conception
0:42:29 of uh of turkey
0:42:32 just like i annihilated the
0:42:34 metaphorization of the quran and
0:42:35 executive perspective it's the same kind
0:42:36 of
0:42:37 this general thought process you can
0:42:40 kind of see the temperament within
0:42:41 tamiya here you can see what kind of a
0:42:43 man he is quite frankly he he's a bit
0:42:45 it's like a lion you know he doesn't
0:42:47 like to just
0:42:49 take the prey and destroy it he likes to
0:42:51 make sure that
0:42:52 or maybe i shouldn't go into further
0:42:54 details but
0:42:56 but he makes sure that everything is
0:42:57 eliminated you know
0:42:59 yeah but uh
0:43:01 i think that's the reason why
0:43:03 if you ask me that's my opinion of why
0:43:05 he's done that but
0:43:06 why do you need to say why do you need
0:43:08 to really take a anti-neuroplatonic
0:43:10 position like that much is it because
0:43:11 the quran sunnah makes it so clear
0:43:14 is it not i don't think so it's simply
0:43:15 because
0:43:16 like i say he wants to really take the
0:43:19 sword to the jugular
0:43:20 of the opponent and
0:43:22 i think that's what he's done but as
0:43:24 we'll see
0:43:25 there are complications with this and
0:43:27 i'll tell you where the complications
0:43:28 are and i'll i'll be as charitable as
0:43:29 possible today but he's a thinker just
0:43:31 like anything and as um
0:43:34 alex says
0:43:37 you know alex said every human being on
0:43:39 the face of the earth you take something
0:43:40 from him and you reject something from
0:43:42 him except for muhammad
0:43:44 so yani i know this is this figure which
0:43:47 is imminent we respect very dearly and
0:43:49 spending time and effort and you know to
0:43:51 understand what he's saying
0:43:52 is c is is like holy figure in you know
0:43:56 that's what he is salafi circles he's
0:43:57 the untouchable one really he's under
0:44:00 everybody from the selfies accepts this
0:44:02 man i don't know of any selfie that does
0:44:03 not
0:44:04 that which is major which is major and
0:44:06 he's respected even among other groups
0:44:08 which is why we're talking about him
0:44:10 here
0:44:10 but we have to also see where he could
0:44:12 have gone wrong
0:44:13 and i know that's very uncomfortable for
0:44:15 some people and people are refusing oh
0:44:16 is it trying no i'm not just it's just
0:44:18 what it's not
0:44:18 we have to
0:44:20 so we're gonna look at that yeah
0:44:23 through the different ways that he goes
0:44:25 through he's mentioned five ways that
0:44:27 you can understand composition
0:44:29 and then he basically
0:44:30 deletes a lot of the other definitions
0:44:32 and says okay this is the one that we're
0:44:34 talking about disassembly whatever
0:44:36 what i understood from you is that he
0:44:38 gets rid of the other ones
0:44:40 largely based on his
0:44:42 backup histological positions yeah the
0:44:44 fact that he's denies the universe and
0:44:46 stuff yes
0:44:47 he denies them in
0:44:48 the extra mental world right right so if
0:44:50 we if we decide to say that okay we're
0:44:52 gonna take whatever tami is saying in
0:44:54 religion like we're gonna take his
0:44:55 definition of parts
0:44:57 but we don't take for instance his
0:44:59 epistemology yeah then isn't
0:45:01 does that make our rejection of the
0:45:03 other definitions a bit arbitrary now
0:45:06 we don't have to say in that way is that
0:45:08 we're going to do this it was like it's
0:45:10 a big buffet and we're taking some of
0:45:11 this and take some of that
0:45:13 we're saying it's not like we have to
0:45:15 affirm anything either i'm not saying go
0:45:17 ahead let's affirm the universals it
0:45:18 been say me as making a stronger case
0:45:20 than just uh than just being agnostic
0:45:22 about the universals or having a neutral
0:45:24 position
0:45:25 like
0:45:26 he is saying that they are not they
0:45:27 don't exist in the role they don't exist
0:45:28 in extreme reality yeah what i'm saying
0:45:31 is that going that far and saying
0:45:32 something does not exist
0:45:34 like putting an atheistic posit like you
0:45:36 know atheists have negative atheists and
0:45:38 positive atheists positivity say god
0:45:40 doesn't exist
0:45:41 that most atheists are negative atheists
0:45:44 so they'll say that we don't know if god
0:45:45 exists or not i'm saying there's no need
0:45:47 to take a very strong position on
0:45:48 universals i'm i'm not saying that he's
0:45:51 wrong about it universals might very
0:45:53 well not might not exist
0:45:55 but it's not
0:45:56 for me i don't see why it's impossible
0:45:58 that allah created them
0:46:00 yeah and it's for me it's not an
0:46:01 impossible creation it's not like a
0:46:03 squared circle
0:46:04 that allah creates some universal
0:46:06 somewhere
0:46:07 i just
0:46:08 explained like
0:46:10 this idea of adam ash head and the new
0:46:12 platonic forms and stuff like that
0:46:15 you know i'm not saying we should adopt
0:46:17 a new platonic forms either that you
0:46:18 know there's this perfect
0:46:20 idea of what a sword looks like and the
0:46:21 differentiation what differentiates us a
0:46:23 knife from a sword
0:46:26 so what length does it actually have to
0:46:27 be
0:46:28 so if you get a knife what length does
0:46:30 it actually have to be
0:46:31 when it stops being a knife and starts
0:46:33 being a sword
0:46:36 when is it is it 10 inches 15 inches 13
0:46:40 inches when exactly so so plato would
0:46:43 maybe argue that there's a there's a
0:46:45 perfect length where if it gets that
0:46:46 length now it's a sword
0:46:48 because this uh this archetype or this
0:46:51 is of the sword is there in the
0:46:53 animation somewhere
0:46:56 i'm saying that it's it's not completely
0:46:57 irrational really
0:46:59 but let me tell you where it gets
0:47:00 problematic so obviously
0:47:02 we we went through something in this uh
0:47:05 in these sessions where we were speaking
0:47:07 about and we're moving on now to tell
0:47:09 hate arguments so oh and the goal rap
0:47:12 we'll you know do the goal rap maybe
0:47:14 more detail
0:47:17 but the idea that you know evan cena who
0:47:18 remembers how he been cena argues for
0:47:21 the oneness of god
0:47:22 my do you remember that
0:47:24 oh i see you don't pay attention
0:47:27 how does even cena argue for the for the
0:47:29 oneness of god do you remember
0:47:31 yeah and
0:47:33 so his argument was uh
0:47:36 a necessary existence um
0:47:39 can only be one because um
0:47:41 uh if there was more than one necessary
0:47:43 existence uh by definition they would be
0:47:45 dependent on uh uh on the other
0:47:48 existence
0:47:49 so uh the uh
0:47:51 so that would make it a contingent
0:47:52 existence not a necessary existence
0:47:55 yes
0:47:55 so they've been telling me his
0:47:57 argument against that is
0:47:59 because i looked at
0:48:00 shanghai
0:48:02 and then i couldn't really fight like he
0:48:04 attacked it but he didn't go into detail
0:48:06 about this attack and i kept looking
0:48:07 over what he was trying to say and i
0:48:08 couldn't really understood what he was
0:48:10 saying but it wasn't fleshed out nicely
0:48:12 but then when we found that book
0:48:14 recently
0:48:15 philosopher which is a new manuscript
0:48:17 and whatever
0:48:18 when he found that i saw his response
0:48:20 there i think i understood what he was
0:48:22 saying now because it made me understand
0:48:24 it so basically this is what he's that's
0:48:26 what he's saying
0:48:28 he's saying he goes back to the
0:48:30 universal thing he's saying look
0:48:33 when you're saying there's one necessary
0:48:34 existence another necessary existence
0:48:35 and either if you're talking about the
0:48:36 same things either tautological or that
0:48:39 one of them is contingent or that both
0:48:40 of them are contingent or that is
0:48:41 created or that a third party created
0:48:43 the two things which means that that's
0:48:44 necessary and both those are contingent
0:48:46 these are the exhaustive things that i
0:48:48 mentioned in his book here
0:48:49 he's saying that
0:48:51 but this is all conceptual analysis
0:48:55 this is all conceptual analysis it's all
0:48:57 concepts you're just dealing with
0:48:58 concepts and so the necessary existence
0:49:00 that you're talking about here
0:49:02 is propositional and this is exactly
0:49:04 what emanuel kant said
0:49:06 emmanuel kant he famously said
0:49:09 existence is not a proposition
0:49:13 he i believe emmanuel kant saw his works
0:49:16 this guy uh it became his works i
0:49:17 believe so because a critique of pure
0:49:19 reason think think of the titles as well
0:49:21 critique of pure reason and
0:49:24 a response to the logicians
0:49:26 do you see
0:49:28 and evan you can't slide his book
0:49:29 bismuth
0:49:31 some manuscripts yeah i mean i i do
0:49:33 imagine is the biggest is by far this
0:49:36 one you know in german in german uh
0:49:38 philosophy is number one basically
0:49:40 in terms of philosophy
0:49:42 you know
0:49:44 uh
0:49:47 but
0:49:49 it's it's exactly what he said here
0:49:52 and if you i don't want to go into a
0:49:53 tangent but
0:49:56 in tamiya has an attack on the syllogism
0:49:58 have you come across this
0:50:01 the the response to the greek logicians
0:50:03 it been samia attacks uh
0:50:06 uh all men are mortal socrates are man
0:50:08 therefore socrates is more immortal yeah
0:50:10 that's syllogism and when samia said
0:50:12 well
0:50:13 to be honest with you
0:50:15 all you're doing is
0:50:16 all the information that is mentioned in
0:50:18 the first premise is mentioned
0:50:20 the conclusion
0:50:21 includes information as mentioned in the
0:50:22 first premise
0:50:24 so in other words it's
0:50:25 all syllogism are total logical
0:50:28 and by the way mathematics is sort of
0:50:29 logical as well
0:50:31 and he's right i mean if i say 2 plus 2
0:50:33 equals 4 what am i saying
0:50:35 4 equals 4.
0:50:37 yanni 2 plus 2 is just another
0:50:38 expression of four but i'm just saying
0:50:40 two plus two
0:50:41 but two plus two is just another way of
0:50:43 saying four so it's like saying
0:50:45 it's like saying four expressing it in a
0:50:47 different way all of mathematics is like
0:50:48 that in many ways the syllogism is like
0:50:51 that as well
0:50:52 because if you say oh man immortal that
0:50:53 includes obviously a woman immortal then
0:50:55 socrates is a mortal what you're doing
0:50:57 is you're you're extracting
0:50:59 uh uh obvious common sense notion
0:51:02 from the
0:51:03 the the conclusion from the from the
0:51:06 premise so he's saying he doesn't give
0:51:07 you new knowledge here that's what he
0:51:09 was saying and it's a very powerful
0:51:10 people think oh that therefore because
0:51:12 he wrote a book called
0:51:13 the response
0:51:15 sorry musicians that he's against logic
0:51:17 yeah she's foolish people he's going
0:51:19 deeper than he's saying logic has
0:51:21 problems for example one of his um
0:51:24 one of his uh one of his uh attacks was
0:51:27 on al had
0:51:28 with the definition the logical
0:51:29 definition
0:51:31 because he says that kind of
0:51:33 and he said it's not possible
0:51:35 and in fact he mentions that general
0:51:36 management is comprehensive can you have
0:51:38 a definition which completely
0:51:40 uh covers all of the things of that
0:51:42 particular subject matter he says no it
0:51:43 doesn't doesn't exist and you don't need
0:51:45 it and it's superfluous part of the
0:51:47 discourse
0:51:48 for example what is the definition of
0:51:50 love
0:51:50 remember he mentions love
0:51:52 it is very powerful what is it what is
0:51:54 the definition of love i mean that's my
0:51:55 question to you can you tell me
0:51:59 i mean there's a song that was i want to
0:52:01 know what love is i want you to show me
0:52:04 and that's what i've been telling you i
0:52:05 was saying is in saying that you can you
0:52:07 can you cannot put love into a
0:52:08 definitional format i want to know what
0:52:10 love is you don't write it down like you
0:52:12 know i have my own definition of love by
0:52:14 the way
0:52:15 but it's which is that it's attachment
0:52:18 that if threatened causes anxiety and if
0:52:20 removed causes grief
0:52:23 this is
0:52:24 but then my my problem is is that i was
0:52:26 thinking about this how do i
0:52:27 differentiate i'll give you this as an
0:52:29 example right
0:52:30 it's a bit slightly relevant you know
0:52:32 but how how that definition sorry to say
0:52:35 does not differentiate between platonic
0:52:37 forms of love i'm critiquing my own
0:52:38 definition here but it doesn't
0:52:40 differentiate between platonic forms of
0:52:42 love and romantic forms of love
0:52:44 like how would you give me a definition
0:52:47 that you can use in in articulated
0:52:49 format which
0:52:51 differentiates clearly between romantic
0:52:53 forms of love and platonic forms of love
0:52:55 i don't think you can do it
0:52:57 all i come to myself when i thought
0:52:58 about it is that well it just tastes
0:53:00 different like or it feels different
0:53:03 whatever you like
0:53:05 oh so it's sexual
0:53:07 no but no but sex is a different
0:53:09 category now under the desire maybe
0:53:11 now let's let's imagine that there's a
0:53:13 platonic there's a romantic relationship
0:53:14 between people that have you know have
0:53:17 no sexual vigor
0:53:18 but it's still a romantic relationship
0:53:20 like elderly people or something like
0:53:21 that it's still a romantic relationship
0:53:23 you know
0:53:24 how do we differentiate such a
0:53:25 relationship
0:53:26 between the platonic in terms of
0:53:28 definitional format
0:53:30 he's saying it was saying you won't be
0:53:32 able to basically this is what he's
0:53:33 saying he's literally this example again
0:53:36 love and all that kind he cannot use
0:53:37 he's saying you cannot
0:53:40 try your best and do this and do that
0:53:41 yuka yani
0:53:43 basically he says that the ones who know
0:53:45 about these things are the practitioners
0:53:47 of it
0:53:48 lovers like me romantics
0:53:51 but you know that's uh that's that's the
0:53:53 point you see but anyway the reason why
0:53:55 i'm making putting this to your
0:53:56 attention is because he was meticulous
0:53:58 in his his argumentative method he
0:54:00 wasn't
0:54:00 he wasn't slap dash or going in
0:54:02 haphazardly and stuff like that no no
0:54:04 he was
0:54:06 he thought
0:54:07 very deeply about these matters as you
0:54:09 can see
0:54:10 i mean really and truly one of the
0:54:12 greatest contributions to the western
0:54:13 philosophical canon made similar
0:54:15 arguments as we're seeing here
0:54:18 which is immanuel kant if you look at
0:54:20 manuel kant's attack on the cosmological
0:54:22 argument and his attack on the
0:54:23 ontological argument
0:54:25 his attack on the ontological argument
0:54:27 is very similar to the attack of tamiya
0:54:28 on
0:54:30 the universals
0:54:33 and they're not elaborative at all
0:54:35 like
0:54:37 kants in
0:54:37 not elaborative but they're just there
0:54:40 which shows you that great minds think
0:54:42 alike or that maybe great minds copy
0:54:43 other great minds
0:54:45 one of one of one or one or the other
0:54:48 but um so he's rejecting this he's
0:54:50 saying that you know this idea of you
0:54:52 know if you talk about necessary
0:54:53 existence in this conceptual format
0:54:54 there's an issue here
0:54:56 but the way he's um
0:54:58 what he does is he does what he believes
0:55:01 in
0:55:03 is
0:55:15 and nor does he have any creator with
0:55:17 him and had he had any creators with him
0:55:20 they would have each snatched away some
0:55:21 part of their create uh creation and so
0:55:23 he says this even samia says if the
0:55:25 world has two manufacturers it would be
0:55:27 the case that if one of them willed
0:55:28 something and the other will the
0:55:29 opposite for example
0:55:31 if one of them willed for the sun to
0:55:33 rise from the east and the other one
0:55:34 will for the sun to rise in the west it
0:55:35 would have been impossible for either of
0:55:37 the two manufacturers to realize his
0:55:40 respective will
0:55:42 as would entail
0:55:44 bring together two opposite things
0:55:46 okay
0:55:47 either one of them will realize his will
0:55:49 such that the others cannot be
0:55:51 considered supreme lord or the opposite
0:55:52 and this is a very strong and probably
0:55:53 the most powerful argument
0:55:55 yeah
0:55:56 you can't have two supreme wills as
0:55:58 simple as that
0:55:59 and when i try and explain this to
0:56:01 children
0:56:03 i use like uh maybe i shouldn't but i
0:56:05 use this kind of example you see example
0:56:08 like
0:56:09 imagine if this is a yani if god
0:56:12 sorry to say any
0:56:14 it cannot be imagined that he will lose
0:56:16 a fight
0:56:16 or it cannot be imagined he will draw a
0:56:18 fight okay i'll fight true and if he had
0:56:20 to compromise then that would entail his
0:56:23 insufficiency
0:56:25 and so this basically so he's saying
0:56:27 this is fine but then the question is
0:56:29 doesn't this argument itself become
0:56:31 conceptual
0:56:34 yeah and if you're talking about supreme
0:56:35 will it's not something you've seen is
0:56:37 it
0:56:38 have you seen this i mean have you seen
0:56:40 i mean the supreme will of god you've
0:56:42 not seen that
0:56:44 the supreme creative capacity of god
0:56:45 you've not seen that
0:56:47 the only thing i can say
0:56:51 now
0:56:51 in order to save evantaemia from this
0:56:54 trouble
0:56:56 is as follows and uh and i have thought
0:56:58 about this quite
0:56:59 a lot yeah
0:57:01 it's to say that even tamiya and he
0:57:02 makes this clear in shanghai
0:57:05 he says that we must have cosmological i
0:57:07 mean not we must have but he prefers
0:57:09 cosmological starting points to the
0:57:11 arguments for existence of god and then
0:57:13 argues
0:57:14 on infinite rigorous basis which is
0:57:16 against what al-halak says because said
0:57:18 that he doesn't even make an argument of
0:57:19 god's existence which is false he does
0:57:20 make an argument because clearly he does
0:57:23 it will tell me it makes argument for
0:57:24 god's existence in shanghai
0:57:26 he says the best arguments from hadooth
0:57:29 and he does the same thing in
0:57:31 and he rejects uh the he rejects the
0:57:34 hadith sam argument of the martesilla
0:57:37 and that also the ashara's use which is
0:57:39 atomism the idea of atomism and so on
0:57:41 and he doesn't reject them can argument
0:57:42 even cena he accepts it but he says just
0:57:44 long and unnecessary
0:57:46 that's what he's saying he said it's
0:57:48 correct but it's not it's long it's a
0:57:49 bit long and he has all this problem
0:57:51 with taqib
0:57:52 but he actually rejects the johar
0:57:54 argument the uh
0:57:56 argument of the mata he actually rejects
0:57:57 it and this is mentioned clearly in his
0:57:59 books
0:58:00 uh but um
0:58:01 what i was saying about that is that
0:58:03 the only thing i can say is that whereas
0:58:06 we didn't see this argument he assigned
0:58:07 directly with the conceptual analysis
0:58:09 he's saying look imagine if you have one
0:58:10 necessary existence and he says and
0:58:12 that's something that cannot
0:58:14 be imagined any other way a contingent
0:58:16 thing is that if it's removed no
0:58:18 contradiction would occur so if
0:58:20 something which is necessary which
0:58:21 cannot be existed any other way if it's
0:58:23 removed and the possibility will occur
0:58:26 from uh in the creation
0:58:27 and so he's saying forget about all of
0:58:29 that it would take me to say start with
0:58:31 cosmological slang points we see the
0:58:33 rain coming down from the sky we see the
0:58:34 plants coming out from the ground we see
0:58:36 the trees coming all this kind of things
0:58:38 all of this at the beginning right yeah
0:58:39 we say we have the beginning no problem
0:58:40 so they can't have an infinite regress
0:58:42 and you know the argument
0:58:44 and he argues that there cannot be an
0:58:46 infinite regress of causes but he does
0:58:48 believe in
0:58:49 clearly yeah which is that god is
0:58:51 perpetually creating into the past and
0:58:52 he believes in actual infinity therefore
0:58:54 that he has tells him that entails that
0:58:56 he believes in accident so which goes
0:58:57 against our shady proof which we'll talk
0:58:59 about next week
0:59:00 uh the view that there cannot be an
0:59:02 actual infinity it doesn't it cannot
0:59:03 exist mathematically and there isn't as
0:59:06 a controversy in maths not just in
0:59:08 philosophy in maths whether or not an
0:59:10 actual infiniti can
0:59:11 happen or not even in the future
0:59:14 not in
0:59:15 in in any in any form there's a
0:59:17 controversy as if this can this thing
0:59:19 exist or not and you might have
0:59:21 hilbert's famous uh hotel have you heard
0:59:23 of this william lane craig and all these
0:59:25 kind of things talk about it
0:59:28 and if you look at william lane craig's
0:59:29 kind of argumentative method he's using
0:59:31 arguments okay but it's not just ashari
0:59:33 arguments it's obviously arguments of
0:59:34 jonathan lopez and you know these
0:59:36 individuals before but really he uses
0:59:37 the ghazalian version yeah which is an
0:59:39 ashari version so
0:59:41 it's interesting that you know he's
0:59:42 using the quran to defend the bible or
0:59:44 he's using the muslims to defend his uh
0:59:46 faith
0:59:47 that's something else for another day
0:59:48 but that's um
0:59:50 the idea of infinite or infinity
0:59:53 one of the proofs for the existence of
0:59:55 god that are used by the ashadis
0:59:58 especially
0:59:59 is that they cannot be an infinity in
1:00:00 the real world and then he he says
1:00:02 therefore you know
1:00:03 uh there must be uh first cause whatever
1:00:06 you've heard this argument before i'm
1:00:07 sure you've heard it before yeah
1:00:09 cosmological argument the first the
1:00:10 first first way of thomas aquinas
1:00:12 whatever yeah let me tell you this i
1:00:14 don't care about all of that and there
1:00:15 can be infinite in the real world which
1:00:17 is very powerful
1:00:19 he said i don't care about that and in
1:00:21 fact he refused
1:00:24 who came before him
1:00:26 and didn't have a chance to respond
1:00:27 therefore but but he refutes him
1:00:30 no he refutes him and says you know why
1:00:31 cannot he says do you not believe in
1:00:33 fact he makes an interesting point he
1:00:35 said do you not believe in heaven hell
1:00:37 and it's going to be infinite time and
1:00:38 infinite this and infinite coming so why
1:00:39 did you make an exception for post
1:00:40 post-eternity and you know he makes
1:00:42 logical points annie
1:00:44 and
1:00:45 uh if you speak to an atheist who is you
1:00:48 know hell-bent on the opinion that
1:00:49 anthony can exist in the real world and
1:00:51 they can be an infinite multiverse
1:00:54 then you you insisting that they can't
1:00:55 be the case
1:00:56 you're gonna have to bring out all of
1:00:58 the tools of the mathematical warehouse
1:00:59 and you're gonna have to show them this
1:01:00 now ibm tamiya's way actually helps us
1:01:02 here because he's saying look even
1:01:04 though
1:01:05 there can be an infinite regress of
1:01:06 things originated things that god
1:01:09 perpetually creates instead of past
1:01:10 there cannot be an infinite regress of
1:01:12 causes
1:01:14 and he gives exactly pretty much the
1:01:15 same proof of the philosopher
1:01:17 because he says i don't know of anyone
1:01:18 who disagrees with that and he's right
1:01:19 there's not many people who disagree
1:01:20 with the point that they cannot be an
1:01:22 infinite regress of causes originated
1:01:23 things
1:01:24 unless i've you know i've missed
1:01:26 something on the quantum discussions
1:01:28 certainly not in the medieval world
1:01:30 that that was the case any questions
1:01:31 here
1:01:33 in relation to the supreme world uh
1:01:35 can't even take me and say that but it's
1:01:38 not i'm just
1:01:39 in relation to the supreme world yeah
1:01:42 he says look it's in the quran
1:01:44 that allah has that and
1:01:45 foreign i believe in the quran as being
1:01:47 legitimate no no he doesn't say this
1:01:49 in fact quite frankly um he ibrahim
1:01:54 refutes al-ahmadi
1:01:56 that's exactly what he says
1:02:00 he says that the tamannaah argument
1:02:04 he doesn't accept it
1:02:05 he says i i accept it only because
1:02:07 it's in the quran i accept it because
1:02:09 allah has revealed it ibm tell me he
1:02:11 says not actually and he refutes him on
1:02:13 that even tell me he refutes him on the
1:02:14 grounds that actually no this is you
1:02:17 cannot just say it's in the quran and
1:02:18 that's like
1:02:25 actually the boldness to say even though
1:02:27 it's in the quran
1:02:28 as an argument can you imagine this he
1:02:30 says even though i don't accept the
1:02:32 argumentative structure of this
1:02:35 is saying that you know he's saying that
1:02:37 i believe in diverse
1:02:39 as
1:02:40 i wouldn't use it as an argument
1:02:45 or because the argument from what i
1:02:47 remember what he was saying is that
1:02:48 basically you cannot do durable method
1:02:50 with mustahil or something like that
1:02:53 i think that's what it is
1:02:55 you know
1:02:57 so he's saying the arguments in the
1:02:59 quran
1:03:00 i accept it as the quran but it's
1:03:02 argument i don't really feel it yeah
1:03:04 basically yeah
1:03:06 subhanallah
1:03:07 yes yes i think
1:03:09 maybe maybe you can take from that and
1:03:10 i'm no expert in them but they'll read
1:03:12 it again but and maybe can someone
1:03:14 correct me from someone who's very
1:03:15 lamely quite well but
1:03:17 you can take from that that al-ahmad is
1:03:18 saying that basically that you know
1:03:20 uh
1:03:21 what policy isn't
1:03:23 is logically impossible i don't know if
1:03:25 that's what he would say
1:03:27 that the reason why he doesn't believe
1:03:28 in a quran maybe i don't know if that's
1:03:31 what he could that was but it was a
1:03:33 clear
1:03:36 there's a clear like you know locking of
1:03:38 the horns here like you know even tell
1:03:39 me i refute him quite heavily for this
1:03:43 and emily is one of those figures now
1:03:44 that there's phd's being done on him
1:03:45 actually
1:03:46 in the western world as i think it's a
1:03:47 woman i come about her name but she's
1:03:48 doing a phd she talks lectures on emily
1:03:50 and those kind of things but the reason
1:03:52 why you always find and this might sound
1:03:54 very uh
1:03:56 over rapid generalizations and stuff
1:03:58 but uh you always find western academics
1:04:01 flocking to those individuals who say
1:04:03 the wildest things
1:04:06 you know even has them and remedy you
1:04:08 know
1:04:09 yeah we've been cena you know it's
1:04:11 academics they love this kind of because
1:04:12 they oh they're thinking outside the box
1:04:13 you know they don't want to go status
1:04:15 quo
1:04:15 so you'll find them you know
1:04:17 flocking to these ones and praising them
1:04:19 and all that even are huge
1:04:22 they love him you know
1:04:24 so
1:04:26 you know
1:04:27 anyway
1:04:30 there was i saying it is just that but
1:04:33 he was he was traditional like ahmed he
1:04:34 was his ashari like he was stuck he
1:04:36 stuck with the
1:04:38 ashari line it's not like he just he
1:04:39 just made some he thought outside the
1:04:41 box quite a lot
1:04:44 um what was i saying now so yeah it is
1:04:47 conceptual at the point where you're
1:04:48 talking about the all powerful agency of
1:04:51 allah
1:04:53 but you you you're how you're you're
1:04:55 thinking about that now it's conceptual
1:04:58 the only thing you can say is that ibm
1:04:59 tamiya starts with cosmological starting
1:05:01 points but then the question is on what
1:05:03 grounds is it legitimate that you can
1:05:05 conceptualize things and make arguments
1:05:07 conceptually on something if and only if
1:05:11 yeah they start with cosmological
1:05:12 starting points
1:05:14 does that make sense so what the
1:05:16 question would be then why is it that if
1:05:18 you start of cosmological starting
1:05:19 points
1:05:21 um subsequent conceptualization
1:05:23 legitimate whereas if you don't it's not
1:05:28 this is a question
1:05:29 and that's something he has not
1:05:30 addressed
1:05:32 the futura is not uh remember for him
1:05:34 first is instinct it's not knowledge
1:05:36 like that so it's not you cannot say
1:05:38 well
1:05:40 it's not it's not a strong argument
1:05:43 so i think this is this is an issue here
1:05:45 like you know
1:05:46 but you don't need to once again it's
1:05:48 like you're disabling your own army
1:05:50 like in a sense you don't need to make
1:05:52 because i can see if you take a strong
1:05:54 nominalist or conceptus position how
1:05:56 that can bite you back like this would
1:05:58 be something an atheist could say
1:06:00 well if you're saying universals don't
1:06:01 exist
1:06:03 and you're being categorical about that
1:06:05 then why speak about god's attributes in
1:06:07 the cast in conceptual ways that we can
1:06:09 only register conceptually
1:06:12 what's the link here between
1:06:13 universals and like conceptionism i
1:06:16 don't understand this
1:06:17 conceptualism is basically is different
1:06:19 to nominalism and so much as
1:06:20 conceptualists doesn't deny the
1:06:22 existence of universals but it just says
1:06:24 that they're in the mind
1:06:25 whereas the anomalies says they don't
1:06:27 exist anywhere
1:06:28 they don't exist full stop so the reason
1:06:31 why we're saying that he's a
1:06:32 conceptualist is because
1:06:33 he accepts that the existence within he
1:06:36 says in the mind
1:06:40 some kind of conceptions believe that
1:06:42 universals exist outside of the mind no
1:06:46 and that's differentiates from normalism
1:06:47 how again because normalism says they
1:06:49 just make the statement that oh they
1:06:51 don't exist at all so they don't caveat
1:06:53 it with that it's in the mind
1:06:56 so why would you need universals if
1:06:58 you're speaking about god
1:07:00 well no if we're talking about the
1:07:02 attributes of god
1:07:03 like the will of god and so on what is
1:07:05 that i mean it's not something you can
1:07:07 subject to a microscope
1:07:09 you cannot see any you know so how how
1:07:12 are we speaking about these things
1:07:14 necessary
1:07:15 yeah we can say it's necessary but
1:07:17 necessary
1:07:19 the thing is
1:07:20 for example even cena i would say
1:07:21 something the effect of is like okay
1:07:22 it's uh he made this distinction between
1:07:26 sorry
1:07:32 the absolute existence
1:07:35 and he says it's absolute because it's
1:07:37 just there
1:07:38 okay
1:07:39 and
1:07:40 even telling me it's saying it's just
1:07:41 there in your mind basically
1:07:45 there is a proximity between what he
1:07:47 would say and what kant would say or
1:07:48 even what an atheist would say you know
1:07:50 can you see this
1:07:54 proximity it's there in your mind only
1:07:59 yeah it's there in your mind no this
1:08:01 idea of the absolute existence is in
1:08:04 your mind just the idea yeah it's true
1:08:05 in your mind and this is absolutely just
1:08:07 necessary
1:08:08 yes so why is it only in your mind if
1:08:10 you can prove it logically yeah he's
1:08:11 saying logical things like you're
1:08:12 talking about these categories they're
1:08:14 all in your mind
1:08:15 that's exactly what can said
1:08:17 proposition is not sorry existence is
1:08:19 not proposition
1:08:23 existence is not propositional or
1:08:26 uh
1:08:27 yeah is that what we said existence is
1:08:28 not proposition so he's saying that he's
1:08:30 just took it from entertainment i
1:08:31 believe i can't prove it now although i
1:08:33 have the tools to do all time or
1:08:34 inclination but
1:08:36 you know i think he's taking it from him
1:08:38 i do believe so
1:08:41 is it not proposition
1:08:43 it's not existence i think something
1:08:45 like that yeah
1:08:47 proposition is not uh
1:08:49 it's not an existence
1:08:56 did you see the issue but then the
1:08:58 question is yeah we go back to the
1:09:00 argument stock arguments that we so
1:09:02 quite frankly right we give to atheists
1:09:05 which is well a number is not
1:09:08 it's not something that you can pirate
1:09:10 or java you cannot put it under a
1:09:11 microscope
1:09:12 the logical framework is not something
1:09:14 you're planning on a microscope
1:09:15 and eventually we'll find this difficult
1:09:17 in fact that's one of the reasons why
1:09:18 verification isn't dropped because the
1:09:21 scientific method itself could not be
1:09:22 substantiated through the verification
1:09:23 method
1:09:24 so this seems to be the weakest part of
1:09:26 the cosmology i have to have to be
1:09:27 honest and say this
1:09:29 um
1:09:30 but anyone could say anything
1:09:33 could you and
1:09:33 a question like how do you prove
1:09:34 conception is in conception
1:09:39 yeah but the thing is unless they call
1:09:40 it conceptualism remember they're not it
1:09:42 would say we wouldn't call it
1:09:43 conceptualism you could say that
1:09:45 sometimes i i adopt the conceptions
1:09:46 position and these are the things but
1:09:48 he's just saying that i don't believe
1:09:49 these things exist outside your mind
1:09:52 which are universals they don't exist
1:09:54 outside your mind
1:09:57 the only way you can
1:09:58 affirm that basically this is like allah
1:10:01 exists it's because you also have the
1:10:03 additional
1:10:04 which is
1:10:06 so for him
1:10:09 if you can check it for that
1:10:13 this or this internal uh experiential
1:10:16 process
1:10:18 like experimental existences
1:10:20 like what
1:10:22 yeah yeah
1:10:25 it's in that it's lodged there
1:10:28 but
1:10:30 the thing is there's a leap of faith
1:10:31 everywhere
1:10:32 like
1:10:33 he's eliminating
1:10:35 simulator
1:10:36 think about it right
1:10:37 we we start with cosmological starting
1:10:39 points yeah
1:10:41 and then you have to start speaking
1:10:42 conceptually about that which you're not
1:10:44 the unseen if you like yeah
1:10:46 you go from the scene to the unseen and
1:10:48 you speak about the unseen as if you're
1:10:50 speaking about the scene
1:10:52 but he's eliminated okay universals
1:10:54 we're not going to speak about them in
1:10:55 argumentative way but instead of
1:10:57 argumentative way we're going to talk
1:10:58 about them in terms of fitra okay
1:11:00 but this fits our thing
1:11:02 which obviously we agree with and we
1:11:03 believe in and all that but
1:11:05 if you say it's self-evident
1:11:07 you're still going from scene to unseen
1:11:09 you're still going to that
1:11:11 and what what can you say well you know
1:11:13 you've got all these attributes and we
1:11:15 sense them in the future
1:11:17 how can yani then anyway it gives
1:11:20 a chance for anyone to say anything
1:11:21 about anything
1:11:23 i feel this i feel that
1:11:30 about the truth of the quran
1:11:31 i don't think this is uh i don't think
1:11:33 he said this
1:11:34 because then you can say okay like so
1:11:35 someone hears the quran and then they
1:11:37 are they feel okay this must be true
1:11:38 okay what's here yeah i think in that in
1:11:40 that sense he does believe in that
1:11:42 he does believe in that yeah
1:11:45 it reminds you of your original state i
1:11:47 mean you know where is the
1:11:49 ayah which says
1:11:52 uh
1:12:01 you know that when we took from the
1:12:03 progeny of adam from his backs the
1:12:05 the
1:12:06 you know the progenies or the souls and
1:12:09 we said to them am i not your lord and
1:12:11 he said yes i am we said yes we you are
1:12:14 our lord and
1:12:16 in
1:12:18 that you would say on the day of
1:12:19 judgment that we were oblivious of this
1:12:21 heedless of this matter
1:12:23 so basically and this is
1:12:27 it's a strong argument he's saying that
1:12:28 this is self-evident believing in god is
1:12:30 self-evident you don't actually need a
1:12:31 single argument
1:12:33 for his existence all self-evident
1:12:36 allah he installed it into you you don't
1:12:38 need a single argument here
1:12:41 uh but he's not saying therefore i'm not
1:12:42 gonna make an argument he makes an
1:12:43 argument which is the infinite regress
1:12:44 argument which you've all heard before
1:12:46 it's the same argument the infinite
1:12:48 regress argument if i were to drink this
1:12:50 thing and then before i drank it someone
1:12:52 else and someone yeah
1:12:54 it's the infinite weaker sign when he's
1:12:56 saying
1:12:57 it's infinite it was impossible to
1:12:59 infinite regret of causes not of things
1:13:01 do you remember this yeah how would that
1:13:03 will happen
1:13:04 uh
1:13:06 okay
1:13:07 now we move on to the final part of this
1:13:09 session and the hardest the hardest part
1:13:10 of the session
1:13:12 if you didn't think this was hard enough
1:13:16 but this is you know we've gone level up
1:13:18 now so we need to be aware of these
1:13:19 discourses and these things here and
1:13:28 so let's start by saying
1:13:30 this is the hardest part of the session
1:13:32 because uh actually we're in the spirit
1:13:34 of putting things together okay
1:13:36 like the past and the present and all
1:13:38 these kind of things
1:13:39 i would say the central objection of
1:13:42 both the cosmological argument and forms
1:13:44 of contingency argument and even
1:13:45 sometimes ontological argument almost
1:13:47 all arguments for god's existence is
1:13:49 bertrand russell's objection
1:13:52 and to who can remember bertrand
1:13:54 russell's objection to
1:13:56 the cosmological argument and
1:13:58 what is his famous objection
1:14:03 uh that was he said that as well that's
1:14:05 true that is that's correct that's one
1:14:07 of his famous that's the right answer
1:14:10 but let me give you a bit more of a hint
1:14:12 in terms of um when he was having a
1:14:15 debate with copeland on the internet on
1:14:17 the sorry on the radio
1:14:19 and there was a there was a pivotal
1:14:21 turning point in the debate it's a very
1:14:22 famous debate and i don't know what it
1:14:23 was i'll tell you what year it was the
1:14:25 debate it was in 19 uh
1:14:28 what was it
1:14:29 i don't know what it was but
1:14:31 i'll find out the year but it was a
1:14:33 famous debate and this was a pivotal
1:14:35 turning point because coppelston was
1:14:36 doing very well in that debate
1:14:38 and i think he won that a bit actually
1:14:40 but there was one thing that made
1:14:41 everyone think
1:14:42 which was when he said what uh
1:14:45 i uh but
1:14:47 he made the case for the compositional
1:14:49 fallacy which is that
1:14:50 just because a part has a certain
1:14:52 attribute doesn't mean the whole has to
1:14:54 have that same attribute and you
1:14:55 remember the exact example that he he
1:14:57 gave
1:14:58 yeah um i'm not sure yeah
1:15:01 well it's something like um
1:15:03 if we say that every man has a mother it
1:15:05 doesn't mean that the human race has
1:15:06 beautiful that's what he said he said
1:15:08 he says this as if you're saying to me
1:15:10 yani just because every human being has
1:15:12 a mother just therefore the human being
1:15:14 has a mother which is which is what the
1:15:16 compositional fallacy the famous the
1:15:18 strongest possible objection to the
1:15:20 god's argument godly arguments whatever
1:15:23 which people are it's now in you know
1:15:25 text books and all those kind of things
1:15:26 and we've been through this before but
1:15:27 let me just remind you of it and it's
1:15:29 problematic
1:15:31 why because
1:15:33 if i say look you've got you know a wall
1:15:35 here which is made up of small little
1:15:37 bricks yes and we've said this before
1:15:39 and i use this example because it's
1:15:40 pretty straightforward yeah you've got a
1:15:42 wall that is made up of small bricks
1:15:49 okay
1:15:51 but it becomes a big wall
1:15:53 so the part whole distinction what is it
1:15:56 is it
1:15:57 same or different
1:15:59 okay
1:16:00 so it's different but what if i say look
1:16:02 each brick is white
1:16:04 and the wall is why is it different or
1:16:07 the same here
1:16:08 it's the same so the question is
1:16:11 when is it different and when is it the
1:16:13 same do you see
1:16:15 because if if you say well everything in
1:16:16 the universe has a cause
1:16:18 therefore the universe has a cause
1:16:20 there's two ways we can understand this
1:16:23 or everything in the universe is
1:16:24 dependent therefore the universe is
1:16:25 dependent
1:16:27 you see there's two ways you can
1:16:28 understand this it can either be that
1:16:30 the pothole distinction is
1:16:31 differentiated
1:16:35 or it can be what
1:16:37 the same
1:16:40 so how do we know when is what when is
1:16:42 what
1:16:43 that's the question
1:16:45 how do we know that when we're making an
1:16:47 argument
1:16:48 that we are not
1:16:50 committing the fallacy of composition
1:16:53 when is it a fallacy of composition
1:16:55 what are principles that must be at play
1:16:57 for it to be a fallacy of composition or
1:16:59 when are when is it not the fallacy of
1:17:01 composition
1:17:03 so i mean
1:17:05 nowadays people have tried to
1:17:07 revisit this and one of the people that
1:17:09 i read
1:17:10 who have revisited this is joshua
1:17:12 rasmussen who i've actually had a
1:17:13 conversation with i put up online uh
1:17:16 i should have spoken to him about this
1:17:17 but i i came across this after
1:17:20 in his other book because i didn't read
1:17:22 that book
1:17:23 that he wrote the other read the other
1:17:25 book that he wrote then i read this book
1:17:28 and it was interesting i'm not saying
1:17:29 it's completely wrong or anything like
1:17:30 that but i'm saying it's not the best
1:17:32 and i'll explain what he says
1:17:34 and what his principles are and uh and
1:17:37 then we'll talk about him tami's
1:17:38 contribution to this yeah
1:17:41 so
1:17:41 so uh rasmussen
1:17:44 i'm maybe pronouncing his name all wrong
1:17:46 but
1:17:47 he has two principles
1:17:49 okay he is one of them is called the
1:17:51 principle of inheritance
1:17:53 and the other one he calls the principle
1:17:54 of diffusion okay
1:17:56 and he says that
1:17:59 i'll read it he says the future property
1:18:01 is one which spans arbitrary subsections
1:18:03 yeah like a marble
1:18:06 block
1:18:08 uh
1:18:10 which sorry
1:18:13 yeah like a marble block which is true
1:18:16 that even if broken up into pieces each
1:18:18 piece will be a marble so if you have a
1:18:21 marble block
1:18:24 marble block i don't have anything like
1:18:25 that here
1:18:26 if i have a model block
1:18:30 paper is fine yeah paper should be the
1:18:32 same right
1:18:33 if you rip it up yeah it every single
1:18:36 piece will be white white
1:18:39 if white piece of paper i rip it up
1:18:41 every single piece is going to be on why
1:18:44 this is it's diffused
1:18:46 it's a diffuser property which means it
1:18:48 spans arbitrary subsections and it's
1:18:50 inherited throughout the whole paper
1:18:53 he says
1:18:54 so like the marble rock
1:18:56 if broken up into pieces each piece will
1:18:58 be marble
1:18:59 diffuser properties become whole
1:19:01 inherited by the thing in question yeah
1:19:03 given the example of a marble floor
1:19:05 rasamson states that in the case of the
1:19:07 marble floor the floor inherits some of
1:19:09 its properties from its parts
1:19:11 so you inherit it from your parts so
1:19:13 because if you put marble floor put tile
1:19:16 tile tile towel you have now
1:19:18 a marble floor you know you had marble
1:19:20 tiles and now it's some other floor so
1:19:22 the the part and the part contributes
1:19:25 to the hole
1:19:27 yes
1:19:29 from white tiles you get a white floor
1:19:31 okay same thing with white but you can
1:19:32 put while it tells to go you have a
1:19:33 white floor so he's saying here the
1:19:35 distinction between part to part part to
1:19:37 whole is same
1:19:39 yes
1:19:40 the other property is like for example
1:19:42 if every part of the marble floor has
1:19:43 mass so too does the floor similarly if
1:19:45 uh if the parts are shining glass so two
1:19:47 is the whole the the
1:19:49 of consistent fuses are now these are
1:19:51 the ones he's he he says
1:19:53 if they're colors textures densities and
1:19:55 being homogeneous four things he
1:19:57 mentions yeah so colors textures
1:20:00 densities and being homogeneous
1:20:02 one two three four
1:20:05 one two three four
1:20:06 so he mentions obviously he doesn't
1:20:08 reference it in a book he actually says
1:20:10 that uh graham oppe who's seen as the
1:20:13 leading atheist interrogator now
1:20:15 or a philosophical interrogator of the
1:20:17 god arguments and stuff
1:20:19 he said he wrote him an email according
1:20:21 he put his footnote in his book
1:20:23 but he said that graham opie wrote him
1:20:25 an email okay
1:20:26 and that grandma who great mommy by the
1:20:28 way who and lucy just recently debated
1:20:30 remember in that debate
1:20:32 on liberalism and whatever yeah he said
1:20:34 that graham opie
1:20:36 attempt to refute the theory by giving
1:20:37 the example of reflective light look
1:20:39 reflect reflective light
1:20:41 is
1:20:42 in a sense
1:20:44 it's you cannot say it's part whole
1:20:45 inherited
1:20:46 and i thought well you can there's a
1:20:48 lower laying fruit which is quantum
1:20:49 physics yanny
1:20:50 okay if i go for example yeah this piece
1:20:53 of paper
1:20:55 if i go into the subatomic particles you
1:20:57 cannot say it's white
1:21:00 do you see the point like there's a
1:21:01 lower laying fruit which i thought yeah
1:21:03 so if we go with his one two three four
1:21:05 classifications there's issues still
1:21:06 with the classification do you see the
1:21:08 issue here
1:21:09 so i wasn't fully convinced that
1:21:11 obviously you can say the quantum world
1:21:12 to use you need a theory of everything
1:21:13 before and you can defend this i'm not
1:21:15 saying this is
1:21:16 uh unsalvageable i'm not saying that you
1:21:19 know rasmussen's thing is unsalvageable
1:21:21 i'm just saying that it's not the best
1:21:23 so what i want to do is read to you
1:21:25 whatever tamiya writes on the issue
1:21:26 because surprisingly
1:21:28 before i say what even tamiya says uh
1:21:30 rasmussen writes in his book he says
1:21:31 that i am i'm going to tell you
1:21:33 something which i have not read in any
1:21:34 book or read in any article like he says
1:21:37 it's not like him to speak like that you
1:21:39 know if you know him and his temperament
1:21:40 so he said i'm going to tell you
1:21:41 something
1:21:42 when he talks about this whole part
1:21:44 whole inheritance and the diffusive
1:21:45 prophecies versus the inheritance i'm
1:21:46 going to tell you something which i've
1:21:48 not read in any book
1:21:49 or any i've read not i've seen not seen
1:21:51 in any article yet and he gives us
1:21:54 these two principles and these four
1:21:55 things
1:21:57 and we've seen some of the issues with
1:21:58 them
1:21:59 because when is it part whole or when is
1:22:01 it again when is it the same one is it
1:22:02 differentiated that's the question still
1:22:04 we don't have any principles here but
1:22:06 even tell me it comes to maybe the
1:22:07 rescue let's take a look at what he says
1:22:09 i'm going to read out the whole thing
1:22:10 yeah
1:22:12 and this might be a mouthful but let's
1:22:13 just do it anyway it says the principle
1:22:15 in this regard is that if adding one
1:22:16 member of a set to another member yields
1:22:18 a change in the judgment of the set via
1:22:19 the second member then the judgment on
1:22:21 the set will not be comparable to that
1:22:22 of the individual members
1:22:24 if the judgment on the set does not
1:22:26 change with the addition of the second
1:22:27 member then the judgment on the set will
1:22:28 be like that of the individual unit
1:22:31 an example of the first category could
1:22:33 be found in cases where the addition of
1:22:36 of one part of uh to another segment of
1:22:39 the set causes the entire uh set to
1:22:42 become more
1:22:44 longer
1:22:45 or more intense
1:22:48 okay
1:22:48 just remember those three things yeah
1:22:50 more longer more intense or instead of
1:22:52 what maybe
1:22:54 maybe extend it yeah extend it because
1:22:57 extension can be from any direction and
1:22:58 it doesn't have to be long it could be
1:23:00 yeah i think it's just usually extended
1:23:01 for now yeah
1:23:04 in that case the judgment on the set
1:23:05 cannot be like that on the individual
1:23:07 units consequently if it said this is a
1:23:09 long day this does not mean that each
1:23:11 part of the day is long
1:23:13 okay
1:23:14 this is in contrast to saying that every
1:23:15 part of the totality of parts exists or
1:23:17 does not exist or is contingent
1:23:19 necessary or impossible
1:23:20 that is because adding an existing thing
1:23:22 to an existing thing would not prevent
1:23:24 an existing thing from becoming existent
1:23:27 moreover adding a non-existent thing to
1:23:29 a non-existent thing would not prevent
1:23:31 that thing from being non-existent
1:23:33 adding a contingent thing to an
1:23:35 impossible thing does not preclude such
1:23:36 entities from being contingent or
1:23:38 impossible
1:23:39 this is in contrast to something which
1:23:41 is inherently impossible which if needed
1:23:43 to er which if added to something
1:23:46 contingent can become contingent as well
1:23:48 examples in this regard include
1:23:50 knowledge and life
1:23:51 and the with the form of being
1:23:53 impossible unless it is coupled with the
1:23:54 latter
1:23:55 or it may be
1:23:57 one of two opposing things which is
1:23:59 contingent in and of itself but
1:24:00 impossible and fused together with other
1:24:02 with the other concept and this we can
1:24:04 just discern the difference between the
1:24:05 continuation of effect which are
1:24:07 generatable or destructible
1:24:10 and
1:24:10 the connection with the existent the
1:24:13 existence of causes and effects which
1:24:15 are contingent and infinitely regressive
1:24:17 thus if a particular originated thing is
1:24:19 added to another particular originated
1:24:20 thing this increases the level of
1:24:21 continuity
1:24:23 protraction and extension which are not
1:24:25 established for the individual members
1:24:26 of the set thus if the set is long
1:24:28 protracted and continuous such that it's
1:24:30 characterized by
1:24:31 muchness
1:24:33 and intensity this does not necessarily
1:24:35 mean that each of the um that each of
1:24:37 the individual members will be tall long
1:24:40 and continuous such that would be
1:24:42 described as much and intense having
1:24:44 causes and their effects in such a seri
1:24:46 in a
1:24:48 in a series such that each of them is
1:24:50 contingent and fused together does not
1:24:51 prevent such members from being
1:24:53 contingent this is similar of how having
1:24:56 things which are non-existent and then
1:24:58 they're coupling them together with
1:25:00 other things that are non-existent will
1:25:02 not transfer them to non-existent thing
1:25:04 to inter realm of existence hence the
1:25:05 adding together of non-existent things
1:25:07 which are also possible will render them
1:25:10 existent
1:25:15 this is on the pages 428 to 432 let me
1:25:18 explain what's going on here
1:25:21 so what's happening is this is a
1:25:25 he's saying look
1:25:27 the way you've got a look at it first
1:25:29 and foremost is that if you add
1:25:30 something to something and this means
1:25:33 if you add a part
1:25:35 to a hole yeah
1:25:37 and that increases
1:25:39 either
1:25:40 number one
1:25:42 the intensity
1:25:47 the
1:25:48 uh what was the other thing that i said
1:25:49 extension
1:25:50 or x
1:25:51 yeah extent it your cause extension
1:25:55 and the other one was uh muchness yeah
1:25:58 or just numericalness or whatever
1:26:02 then that thing is part whole
1:26:04 differentiated
1:26:06 does that make sense
1:26:07 okay let me say this again
1:26:09 okay
1:26:10 if i add
1:26:12 some part of a thing
1:26:15 to a series of parts
1:26:18 and then as a result of me adding those
1:26:20 two things together i get more intensity
1:26:23 of such thing or i get an extension of
1:26:25 such thing or i get
1:26:27 more of that thing as much as more now
1:26:31 then that thing is part to hold
1:26:32 differentiated
1:26:34 so for example if i add
1:26:38 bricks
1:26:39 which are small in size to other bricks
1:26:41 which are small in size in fact
1:26:44 the hole is going to be different to the
1:26:46 part
1:26:50 however so the only thing
1:26:53 that is unsusceptible
1:26:56 to part whole differentiation
1:26:59 are things which are unsusceptible to
1:27:02 addition and subtraction
1:27:05 for example
1:27:07 if i add nothing to nothing let's make
1:27:09 this very simple
1:27:11 what do i have
1:27:13 nothing
1:27:14 because nothing is something which is
1:27:16 unsusceptible to if you add it if you
1:27:20 add nothing with nothing
1:27:22 then you if so if you add it's
1:27:24 unsusceptible to additional subtraction
1:27:26 so if you add nothingness to nothingness
1:27:29 it does not create
1:27:31 muchness or extension of that thing or
1:27:33 intensity
1:27:34 if you add nothing to nothing you have
1:27:35 you have nothing
1:27:37 you have nothing actually
1:27:38 you see you see the
1:27:40 going on
1:27:41 okay if i add
1:27:44 er
1:27:47 he gives principles
1:27:49 he says it's possible that you can
1:27:50 change categories here once again he's
1:27:51 speaking conceptually yeah
1:27:53 he said like for example if you have two
1:27:54 contingent things you can bring two
1:27:56 contingent things together and create
1:27:57 an impossible thing
1:27:59 for example a tall man is contingent a
1:28:01 short man is contingent but when you put
1:28:03 him together it's impossible you can't
1:28:05 put you cannot have a tall short man
1:28:10 but the overriding principle you might
1:28:12 have heard of this many times before is
1:28:14 of the loyalty
1:28:16 something bereft of equality cannot
1:28:17 produce it
1:28:19 if you're bereft of something
1:28:21 small mom used to say to me
1:28:23 you know when i whenever i say something
1:28:24 like you know trying to make a
1:28:25 contribution or if someone like in in
1:28:28 our arab countries this is a very famous
1:28:30 saying annie if someone says like you
1:28:32 know i'm going to teach you how to be a
1:28:34 man
1:28:35 so you say faculty
1:28:37 something that is
1:28:38 bereft of something
1:28:40 you know
1:28:41 is that
1:28:42 on the phone
1:28:44 ali can you hear me brother
1:28:47 no okay something that is bereft of a
1:28:49 quality
1:28:52 cannot cannot produce cannot reduce the
1:28:54 quality so nothingness is bereft
1:28:57 of somethingness therefore if you add
1:28:58 nothingness to nothingness then what
1:29:00 happens
1:29:01 then you have nothingness
1:29:04 so he's saying the same thing now he's
1:29:06 saying that
1:29:08 look the only situation where you're
1:29:09 going to have part whole differentiation
1:29:12 is if
1:29:14 by doing so
1:29:16 or by adding part to whole you have some
1:29:19 addition somewhere you have some
1:29:21 addition somewhere
1:29:25 now he's saying let's go back to another
1:29:27 contingency point if you add contingent
1:29:29 things to contingent things
1:29:32 he's saying this even tamiya is making
1:29:33 the contingency argument here
1:29:35 he said he literally is saying if you
1:29:36 put originated and contingent things
1:29:38 together
1:29:39 something like let me give you an exam
1:29:41 he's not giving this example this is my
1:29:42 example obviously this is a phone a
1:29:44 mobile phone
1:29:47 as you can see i've sealed it up just in
1:29:49 case someone tries to snatch this and
1:29:51 that falls from the pocket something
1:29:52 happens
1:29:55 you know you have to protect the phone
1:29:57 this phone requires charge i'm sure your
1:30:00 one does as well right you see um
1:30:02 unless you have some kind of solo but
1:30:04 even then there's is solar phones it's
1:30:06 charged from the sun yeah
1:30:08 let me tell you what charges on now it's
1:30:09 on
1:30:10 how do i find out i don't know what it's
1:30:12 on
1:30:13 let's pretend it's 25
1:30:15 yeah
1:30:17 now if i have a phone like this
1:30:21 it's dependent on charge
1:30:23 you understand this point it's very easy
1:30:25 no one can deny the point
1:30:27 okay no problem if i get two phones like
1:30:29 this
1:30:31 i get two just like this
1:30:33 can you show me your phone sorry to say
1:30:35 i just want to make it visual because
1:30:37 this is too much this this talking and
1:30:39 this you know let's just make it easy
1:30:43 yes
1:30:45 there's a clear size differential
1:30:52 but
1:30:53 this is like a kid's phone so what is
1:30:55 this what is this
1:30:57 anyway
1:30:59 this is 25
1:31:02 charger your one is 50 55 53 okay
1:31:07 now
1:31:08 do these two phones need more charge or
1:31:10 less charge collectively
1:31:13 they need more charge collectively yeah
1:31:15 if i want to power these two phones
1:31:17 it's
1:31:18 it's more i'd need more charge than just
1:31:20 powering this one here
1:31:22 now okay if i bring a third phone to the
1:31:24 equation third one
1:31:26 we need more charge or less charge we
1:31:28 need more charge
1:31:30 so what are we increasing here
1:31:34 dependency that's the one that you've
1:31:36 woken up
1:31:39 you've completely woken up yesterday so
1:31:41 the more you put dependencies it would
1:31:42 take me to say this the more you're
1:31:44 putting dependent things together
1:31:46 the more you're actually increasing
1:31:47 their dependency it's like if you add
1:31:49 nothing to nothing to nothing it's like
1:31:50 you have more nothing conceptually
1:31:52 although
1:31:53 nothing's really going on because
1:31:54 nothing doesn't exist
1:31:56 but
1:31:57 you're increasing the dependence you
1:31:59 have one dependent thing two dependent
1:32:00 thing three dependent thing four five
1:32:02 six
1:32:03 increasing you need more charge now
1:32:05 if if that wasn't the case then we
1:32:06 wouldn't have new power plants
1:32:08 we say you know what forget about this
1:32:10 whole thing about you know uh
1:32:11 electricity and oil and all this that
1:32:14 because we believe there's a there's a
1:32:16 there's a point there's a turning point
1:32:18 when you put dependent things together
1:32:20 where it does no required there's no
1:32:22 requirement for energy or charge or
1:32:24 dependence it doesn't need anything i
1:32:26 don't think any nuclear physicists have
1:32:27 said that
1:32:29 and there's a reason for this because
1:32:31 they understand that when you put more
1:32:32 and more things that read energy
1:32:33 together you need more charge so even
1:32:36 tell me that saying the more
1:32:38 in terms of pothole differentiation
1:32:40 there is nothing
1:32:42 independency as a quality to indicate to
1:32:45 us
1:32:46 that if you add more and more of it
1:32:48 together
1:32:49 that you somehow get necessity
1:32:52 because the truth is when you put more
1:32:54 dependent things with dependent things
1:32:55 together
1:32:56 the intensity of dependency is increased
1:33:01 yeah it's a extension of the dependency
1:33:05 so it's dependency is part whole
1:33:11 no it's part whole
1:33:13 similar
1:33:14 it's part hot as a city and just like
1:33:16 just he's saying look
1:33:19 look where is the burden of proof
1:33:21 if i was an atheist and said
1:33:23 if you put nothing with nothing together
1:33:25 then you have something like there was
1:33:27 maybe nothing and then something
1:33:29 happened there was absolutely nothing
1:33:30 and then something
1:33:32 this is the most one of the most
1:33:34 powerful questions that you can ask an
1:33:35 atheist why is there something more
1:33:37 rather than nothing again why
1:33:39 if you don't like the why question what
1:33:41 is the reason
1:33:43 that there is something
1:33:44 rather than nothing because someone said
1:33:45 we look like peter atkins he said i
1:33:47 don't believe in my questions say okay
1:33:48 fine i'll change it for you what is the
1:33:50 reason that there's something rather
1:33:52 than nothing
1:33:53 i don't know i don't i'm agnostic
1:33:55 understand that can some can nothing
1:33:57 transform into something
1:33:59 if you add it but nothing nothing
1:34:01 nothing you're not getting something
1:34:03 because something bereft of a quality
1:34:04 cannot produce it
1:34:06 unless
1:34:08 it can only not produce it unless
1:34:13 if you added a part of it to another
1:34:15 part
1:34:16 that it would be increased in intensity
1:34:18 extension or muchness that's the only
1:34:20 exception to the so the rule is
1:34:22 something bereft of a quality cannot
1:34:24 produce it the exception is
1:34:26 unless if you add a part to it
1:34:29 to another part and it produces more
1:34:31 intensity extension or muchness
1:34:33 that's that's our postulation you have
1:34:35 to show us you have to demonstrate and
1:34:37 tell me i would say
1:34:39 as an empiricist not really an impetus
1:34:41 but someone who likes the cosmological
1:34:43 method so you have to demonstrate it
1:34:45 scientifically show it to me
1:34:47 that if you can add something which is a
1:34:49 contingent
1:34:50 or something which needs something
1:34:52 dependent with something which is
1:34:53 dependent and you keep adding it that
1:34:55 somehow the dependency is eliminated or
1:34:58 is absorbed
1:35:01 it's not
1:35:03 it's not going to happen
1:35:04 and so he he solves this issue
1:35:07 you see he's saying something the the
1:35:09 main principle is this something bereft
1:35:12 of equality cannot produce it the
1:35:14 exception is unless
1:35:16 by adding a part
1:35:18 to another part of it
1:35:20 it produces an increase in intensity
1:35:22 extension or muchness
1:35:24 so going back to bertrand russell's
1:35:26 thing
1:35:27 he'll say bertrand are you talking about
1:35:29 my friend yeah
1:35:30 he won't say he's my friend
1:35:32 he'll he will he might he may say
1:35:34 actually when you say the human human
1:35:37 you know
1:35:38 race has a mother
1:35:39 what do you mean by that because how can
1:35:41 the human race have a mother unless
1:35:43 you're talking about some kind of
1:35:44 neoplatonic universal category which we
1:35:46 believe we both believe you as an
1:35:48 atheist in me as iblitamia that these
1:35:50 categories don't even exist in the first
1:35:51 place
1:35:52 so that's unintelligible proposition but
1:35:54 then he'll go further and say look
1:35:57 if you're saying that the human race has
1:35:58 another meaning that there was one
1:36:00 mother that started there was one woman
1:36:01 that started the human race there's
1:36:02 nothing wrong with that that's not
1:36:03 logically inconsistent at all why is
1:36:05 that illogically inconsistent that was a
1:36:07 first human being no issue but if you
1:36:09 mean by that that there's a part whole
1:36:11 differentiation and that that is
1:36:13 unsubstantiated because of the
1:36:14 compositional fallacy
1:36:16 then
1:36:16 the the he would say the argument i put
1:36:19 forward to you bertrand russell is that
1:36:21 something bereft of equality cannot
1:36:23 produce it unless if you add a part to
1:36:26 another part of it it will increase in
1:36:28 intensity muchness or extension and in
1:36:30 the case of dependency we have no
1:36:32 evidence
1:36:33 of any of those things at all
1:36:36 so it's upon you atheist to pr to
1:36:39 produce the evidence so he switched out
1:36:41 the burden of proof
1:36:44 just like an atheist saying what
1:36:46 an atheist saying
1:36:48 something can come from nothing
1:36:49 it goes back to the aid of the quran and
1:36:51 everything does to be honest with you it
1:36:52 does
1:36:53 and this shows you this priority of the
1:36:55 quranic discourse
1:36:57 has they been created from nothing or
1:36:58 were they themselves the creators of
1:37:00 themselves the whole argument this the
1:37:02 depths of this argument goes back to the
1:37:04 ayah
1:37:05 which is that
1:37:06 you cannot have something from nothing a
1:37:09 and something cannot reduce itself
1:37:12 a dependent thing cannot bring itself
1:37:14 into existence
1:37:17 so
1:37:19 how do you do how do you how do you now
1:37:20 and i think this is his defining
1:37:22 contribution and it's better than what
1:37:23 rasmussen says because rasmussen in many
1:37:25 ways he's making he's saying that
1:37:27 the difference between what rasmussen is
1:37:28 saying is that these four things colors
1:37:30 textures and whatever you know i can't
1:37:32 remember the other ones
1:37:33 homogeneity and the and um
1:37:37 one other thing which i forget now
1:37:39 uh
1:37:40 being homogeneous diffuse uh sorry
1:37:42 identity is the four things he's saying
1:37:45 four things in many ways there's a you
1:37:47 can see there's a flesh that joins the
1:37:48 two ideas which is what something that
1:37:50 grows right or something which can
1:37:52 spread but the opposite here is that
1:37:54 he's saying anything with those four
1:37:55 things
1:37:56 is diffusive we're not saying everything
1:37:58 with those four things is diffusive
1:38:00 we're going negative we're starting by
1:38:02 saying something bereft of a quality
1:38:05 cannot produce it unless if you add a
1:38:08 part to it to another part it produces a
1:38:10 different hole
1:38:14 a different hole
1:38:16 and so he
1:38:17 he effectively in a sense i i personally
1:38:20 believe until proven otherwise that he
1:38:22 solves the biggest quandary of the uh
1:38:25 the um
1:38:26 arguments of god's existence one of the
1:38:28 biggest ones and i've not seen this kind
1:38:30 of level of uh assessment
1:38:32 in uh to be fair i've not seen it
1:38:34 anywhere
1:38:35 you know i think this is the final
1:38:36 contribution to the whole thing and it's
1:38:38 put in manhattan's son or something
1:38:39 which is talking about the shia it's a
1:38:41 bit of an unusual place to put it to put
1:38:42 it with you well that's why you have to
1:38:44 in order to know open tamiya's
1:38:46 positions you have to have a wide
1:38:49 reading of hypnotamia and today we've
1:38:50 seen the great mind of him tamiya in
1:38:52 action we've critiqued some of his
1:38:54 theories and we've also taken some of
1:38:56 what he said on board and i think we can
1:38:58 easily take what he said into arguments
1:39:00 with atheistic detractors who don't
1:39:02 believe in god's existence and
1:39:04 especially on the main objections of
1:39:06 god's existence relating to but not
1:39:08 limited to the compositional fallacy
1:39:11 and with that i conclude
1:39:12 wassalamualaikum warahmatullahi