Londoniyyah - Part 10 - Proofs of God's Existence / 2 | Mohammed Hijab (2021-12-16) #

0:00:11 what's up my coming off to the labor
0:00:12 council how are you guys doing uh today
0:00:14 we're going to be going through the
0:00:16 arguments the adapted arguments that i
0:00:18 put forward alhamdulillah when i was
0:00:20 doing my dissertation and so this
0:00:22 obviously been looked at by reviewed by
0:00:24 my professor
0:00:25 when i was at the university of oxford
0:00:26 doing the work recently as you guys know
0:00:29 i finished it and i got some good uh
0:00:31 feedback from him to be fair to him
0:00:32 we've done really well and these are my
0:00:34 proofs i tried to keep it concise and
0:00:37 you know adapt it based on what we've
0:00:39 just talked about not just you've been
0:00:40 seeing this argument but also
0:00:42 the kind of recommendations of the
0:00:43 medieval scholars that came uh
0:00:46 and um
0:00:47 added or subtracted or whatever it is
0:00:49 for me
0:00:51 so the first slide is the the main
0:00:53 proposition okay this is what we are
0:00:55 claiming and in many ways this is the
0:00:57 entire argument in one sentence
0:01:02 there ca we are claiming this
0:01:04 there cannot be a world
0:01:06 with only dependent things without
0:01:08 reference to an independent thing
0:01:11 as dependent things cannot continue
0:01:12 existing on their own
0:01:14 existence is only explicable with
0:01:16 reference to an independent existence
0:01:19 as impossible existences do not exist by
0:01:21 logical necessity
0:01:23 furthermore dependent existence cannot
0:01:25 self-generate or self-maintain
0:01:30 okay
0:01:31 so if the person agrees with this
0:01:35 this proposition
0:01:36 then they have agreed with us
0:01:39 say it's fine
0:01:40 you're right there can't be a world with
0:01:41 only dependent things
0:01:43 because dependent things
0:01:46 can uh or because dependent things by
0:01:49 themselves
0:01:53 are self general generatable if you like
0:01:56 are not self generated one they're not
0:01:57 self maintaining
0:01:59 they can't be a world with only things
0:02:01 which are
0:02:02 susceptible to being destroyed
0:02:04 and that can't be maintained by
0:02:05 themselves
0:02:06 they cannot be such a world
0:02:08 if they say yes you're right say fine do
0:02:10 you agree there must be an independent
0:02:12 thing
0:02:13 well all things depend upon it and it
0:02:14 depends upon nothing
0:02:16 say fine that's now we've
0:02:18 we've reached agreement we'd move on to
0:02:21 the second part which is why is it one
0:02:22 etcetera that's fine
0:02:24 if they say no you're wrong actually
0:02:27 if they say you're wrong about this
0:02:29 there can be such a world
0:02:31 where the
0:02:33 imagine now reading this again
0:02:35 instead of saying they cannot be let's
0:02:36 just read it the other way there can be
0:02:38 a world they say actually we disagree
0:02:40 with you and we say there can be a world
0:02:42 with only dependent things without
0:02:43 reference to an independent thing
0:02:46 as dependent things
0:02:47 now we're saying can exist or continue
0:02:50 existence on their uh existing on their
0:02:52 own
0:02:52 existence is only explicable with
0:02:54 reference
0:02:55 it's not only
0:02:57 explicable with reference to an
0:02:58 independent thing they'll say as
0:03:00 impossible existences they'll agree with
0:03:02 us do not exist biological necessity
0:03:04 furthermore dependent existence can
0:03:06 self-generate or self-maintain so if
0:03:09 they disagree with us on every point
0:03:11 then actually they've agreed with us
0:03:14 why is that case
0:03:16 because they say okay well if if
0:03:18 dependent things can
0:03:20 self-generate or self-maintain then what
0:03:22 are they
0:03:23 then they're independent and necessary
0:03:27 now if there's a series of things which
0:03:29 can self-generate or self-maintain and
0:03:32 you're saying this series of things the
0:03:33 infinite multiverse
0:03:35 the infinite multiverse can whatever it
0:03:37 may be
0:03:38 can self-generate or self-maintain you
0:03:40 are saying the infinite multiverse as
0:03:42 well
0:03:43 independent or independent independent
0:03:46 therefore there you are saying that you
0:03:48 do believe in an independent thing
0:03:49 however we would say
0:03:51 so we talked about we argue from
0:03:53 composition add absurdum that
0:03:55 something which is made up of pieces
0:03:58 uh cannot be uh cannot be in independent
0:04:01 because it's dependent on those pieces
0:04:03 so how do we say that
0:04:05 we look at proof one underneath
0:04:07 everything made up of pieces is
0:04:08 dependent we would say
0:04:10 the universe is made up of pieces
0:04:12 therefore the universe is dependent
0:04:14 now you can say this about the
0:04:15 multiverse an infinite multiverse
0:04:17 anything made up of pieces is dependent
0:04:20 the infinite multiverse is made up of
0:04:22 pieces therefore the the infinite
0:04:23 multiverse is dependent
0:04:26 now they say okay well that's the
0:04:27 composition fallacy or whatever yeah so
0:04:29 no problem we can make this argument
0:04:31 even on a mathematical basis
0:04:33 any set with more than one member is
0:04:35 dependent on its members a member of a
0:04:37 set is the
0:04:38 the part of the set or
0:04:41 an infinite set has more than one member
0:04:43 therefore an infinite set is dependent
0:04:45 on its members so you can make this
0:04:47 argument ontologically
0:04:49 any questions on this
0:04:51 or comments
0:04:54 with the initial proposition made
0:04:59 and the argument therefore
0:05:00 if they say it's an infinite multiverse
0:05:09 so when we talk about the universe uh
0:05:11 you said this
0:05:12 i guess making this argument say that
0:05:13 the universe is made up of pieces that
0:05:15 that can fall to the uh composition
0:05:17 fantasy right
0:05:19 but is there any way to talk about the
0:05:20 universe as a whole
0:05:22 where you don't fall into that fire see
0:05:23 because i feel like this
0:05:25 there might be a difference between
0:05:26 saying for example that i don't know um
0:05:29 uh
0:05:31 it's not exactly the same as saying this
0:05:32 laptop is made up of pieces therefore
0:05:34 the laptop is dependent he said the
0:05:35 universe is made up of pieces therefore
0:05:37 the universe is dependent the thing is
0:05:39 with the compositional fallacy is this
0:05:41 the atheist and the theist both don't
0:05:43 know how to speak about the whole
0:05:44 because they don't encompass the whole
0:05:47 so when we say we'll talk about the
0:05:48 compositional fallacy we say something
0:05:50 like
0:05:50 if i say the
0:05:52 the pieces of an elephant are small
0:05:54 therefore the elephant is small i'm
0:05:55 making compositional fallacy because i'm
0:05:57 generalizing the part to a whole
0:05:59 with a generalization which is disparate
0:06:02 whether the part does not match the
0:06:04 whole
0:06:05 however it's not always the case that
0:06:06 the part doesn't match the hole because
0:06:08 as i've mentioned before you can have a
0:06:10 red wall made up of red bricks
0:06:12 and the red bricks are in not disparate
0:06:15 in fact are commensurate with the red
0:06:16 wall
0:06:17 okay
0:06:18 so you the only way you can call it a
0:06:21 fallacy
0:06:22 is if you know the whole is disparate
0:06:24 from the part
0:06:25 now
0:06:25 the the atheist doesn't know that the
0:06:27 whole is this power from the part but if
0:06:29 they agree with you that the universe is
0:06:30 made up out of pieces
0:06:32 then they never agreed with you that the
0:06:34 universe is dependent
0:06:35 no
0:06:36 the issue of making the argument only
0:06:38 cosmologically is they'll say well
0:06:40 you're saying how do you know that the
0:06:41 universe made up pieces
0:06:44 you only know that the universe made up
0:06:45 pieces because you're observing pieces
0:06:48 in the universe being dependent on other
0:06:49 things
0:06:50 so it's an inductive thing
0:06:52 if you if you have an ontological aspect
0:06:55 of this and say well actually this is
0:06:56 even this is even the case in the mind
0:07:00 this is the case even conceptually right
0:07:03 then you'll say from all perspectives
0:07:04 therefore it's not just cosmological but
0:07:06 it's from all perspectives that you you
0:07:08 can envisage whenever something is made
0:07:11 up of something that that thing
0:07:14 is
0:07:15 a dependent on it
0:07:17 a triangle is made up of three sides a
0:07:19 triangle has no place in the real world
0:07:21 a triangle cannot be smelt cannot be
0:07:24 touched cannot be licked and tasted and
0:07:26 so on
0:07:27 the empirical reality does not apply to
0:07:29 a triangle but we know that a dependent
0:07:31 the triangle in order for its
0:07:33 triangularity to be established there
0:07:35 must be three straight lines
0:07:37 all equating if you want to be
0:07:38 mathematical 180 degrees
0:07:41 so a triangle depends on three straight
0:07:43 lines
0:07:45 and that's a fact without it you have
0:07:47 three you have to you have something
0:07:48 else you have another shape you know so
0:07:51 you you can onto logically argue
0:07:54 that
0:07:55 some things depend on things even
0:07:57 without reference to the cosmos
0:07:59 and if you make this argument on two
0:08:01 separate tracks which is what i'm
0:08:02 proposing here
0:08:04 then what we're saying is it's not just
0:08:07 a physical property it's a it's a
0:08:09 metaphysical property as well which can
0:08:11 be established through set theory it can
0:08:12 be established in mathematics it can
0:08:14 even be established geometry
0:08:16 so why are we assuming that something
0:08:18 which can be established
0:08:20 cosmologically
0:08:21 geometrically mathematically and
0:08:23 logically does not apply to the universe
0:08:26 it's much stronger than saying why is it
0:08:28 something that within the universe and
0:08:29 what happened to it
0:08:31 i think if you corner it off from all
0:08:33 those perspectives you're creating
0:08:34 different tracks and even to find me at
0:08:36 this point actually you say when you're
0:08:38 making arguments for god's existence
0:08:39 it's like when you're playing chess
0:08:41 he said you have to play you have to
0:08:43 argue from different tracks when you're
0:08:44 playing chess you don't only have one uh
0:08:47 line of the attack
0:08:49 you try and get two pieces i'm not a
0:08:50 chess player but you know i can imagine
0:08:54 the martial arts the same thing you
0:08:55 don't just start throwing hay makers
0:08:57 you have to set it up you know you got
0:08:59 the left you know you got the jab then
0:09:00 the right hand then the left hook you
0:09:02 have to set it all up so if you try and
0:09:04 come with one line of attack it's
0:09:06 usually
0:09:07 unless you're of unless a slacker you
0:09:09 know
0:09:12 unless you're yeah yeah but even if
0:09:13 you're especially like what i'm saying
0:09:15 is to be a specialist you should have
0:09:16 two lines of attack because it
0:09:19 it makes the argumentative target for
0:09:21 them so big
0:09:23 that they'll have it's like you know
0:09:24 you've just presented them with a huge
0:09:26 wall that they have to just get bring a
0:09:27 machine gun just keep shooting it try
0:09:29 and get rid of it it's huge it's like a
0:09:31 boulder coming at them now you have to
0:09:33 what you have to do deny everything
0:09:35 then i deny logic then i maths then i
0:09:38 all the intelligence of logic the
0:09:40 intelligence of mass the intelligence of
0:09:42 geometry
0:09:44 and the cosmological reality as well
0:09:46 it's better than just a cosmological
0:09:47 reality
0:09:48 especially with reference to the the
0:09:50 quantum world as well
0:09:51 which has thrown the spanner the cat in
0:09:54 with the pigeons actually
0:09:56 which we don't know anything about
0:09:57 quantum fire and we don't know how to we
0:09:58 don't know how to um put together
0:10:01 quantum physics with the
0:10:03 macro world there is no all-encompassing
0:10:06 theory it doesn't exist
0:10:08 so
0:10:09 you know
0:10:10 and and by the way with quantum physics
0:10:12 they start with different axioms
0:10:14 some even start with retro causality as
0:10:16 i mean i've seen this in papers they
0:10:18 start with retro causality as an axiom
0:10:22 you know the effect has comes before the
0:10:24 the cause and all this kind of stuff
0:10:26 what are you going to do with that
0:10:29 so if you start going into the um
0:10:32 the the scientific and the cosmological
0:10:34 reality and only depend upon it
0:10:36 then just by virtue of the fact that
0:10:37 quantum phys is becoming something which
0:10:39 is uncontrollable animal
0:10:42 much like many of my opponents
0:10:48 it's going to be hard to you know
0:10:49 argue for it in that way i think you
0:10:51 should you should you should have
0:10:52 separate lines here so that's why that's
0:10:54 the
0:10:57 that is the reasoning for having
0:10:59 a cosmological aspect and an ontological
0:11:01 aspect it it heightens and it
0:11:03 strengthens the um
0:11:05 the timeless feature
0:11:09 so the second proof
0:11:12 existence is presupposing everything
0:11:14 that is real necessary facts are real
0:11:15 therefore necessary facts are presuppose
0:11:17 existence
0:11:18 and this just establishes the first part
0:11:20 of it been seen as
0:11:22 there is no doubt that there is
0:11:23 existence that's the most foundational
0:11:24 thing you can ever
0:11:26 think about existence is the most
0:11:28 foundational thing
0:11:29 now
0:11:30 the category of existence has to be the
0:11:32 most foundational thing
0:11:34 because we said two plus two equals a
0:11:35 necessary fact it cannot be conceived of
0:11:37 in any other way
0:11:38 but you can't say two plus two equals
0:11:40 four brought about everything that
0:11:42 exists
0:11:43 because two plus two goes for the
0:11:44 necessary fact it's not a necessary
0:11:45 existence and the category of existence
0:11:47 priest is presupposed or the category of
0:11:50 fact is presupposed in the category of
0:11:52 existence or the category of resistance
0:11:53 is presupposing cause of fact
0:11:55 so if existence is the first thing that
0:11:57 anything must have in order to be
0:12:01 which is existence
0:12:03 and what when we're saying in the
0:12:04 category of existence there's one
0:12:06 necessary existence that's the argument
0:12:08 so we need to establish why existences
0:12:10 are more foundational than anything else
0:12:13 by the way um modelly speaking
0:12:15 there's even that which is referred to
0:12:17 as scientific necessity i'll give you
0:12:19 just one example
0:12:21 uh for if i run if i say i can run 100
0:12:24 meters in two seconds
0:12:28 now that is impossible from a
0:12:31 scientific perspective i can't run 100
0:12:33 and i don't think anyone here can do it
0:12:36 i don't think anyone here can do
0:12:39 right no one can run 100 meters in two
0:12:41 seconds okay not even usain bolt even if
0:12:43 you give him drugs whoever you know
0:12:46 not that we don't know if he's already
0:12:47 taking them or not but you know
0:12:49 no one's gonna run to one second okay
0:12:51 it's scientifically impossible
0:12:54 so when we talk about impossibilities
0:12:56 and possibilities and necessities
0:12:58 the modal these are called modal
0:13:00 categories okay
0:13:03 that's scientific necessity scientific
0:13:05 impossibility scientific whatever but we
0:13:07 are not talking about that we are
0:13:08 talking about logical necessity we are
0:13:10 talking and there is a difference
0:13:12 between logical necessity and scientific
0:13:14 necessities
0:13:16 and logical necessities are much
0:13:18 stronger i like you know more robust
0:13:19 because they're metaphysical they don't
0:13:20 depend on the physical world
0:13:22 whereas scientific necessities and so on
0:13:25 and impossibilities are things which
0:13:27 you must reason through induction
0:13:32 so proof to continue anything that can
0:13:34 be conceivably rearranged abstractly is
0:13:36 contingent
0:13:38 the universe can be conceivably
0:13:40 rearranged abstractly therefore the
0:13:41 universe is contingent
0:13:44 and this is an ontological reality just
0:13:46 like a
0:13:48 set
0:13:50 in the set theory or the members of a
0:13:51 set in the set in set
0:13:54 can be arranged in a different way
0:13:55 therefore it's contingent
0:13:57 it can be rearranged it's contingent
0:13:59 it's not
0:14:00 hard
0:14:01 like that it's not a unchangeable
0:14:05 and so the universe from that why did i
0:14:06 say abstractly because some determinist
0:14:09 may say well actually everything is
0:14:11 necessary because it is predicated on an
0:14:14 uninterrupted causal chain or an
0:14:15 antecedent
0:14:16 cause of events which came before it and
0:14:18 so we are
0:14:19 living a co you know ventril cosmic
0:14:22 ventriloquism i am a puppet to all of
0:14:24 the uninterrupted causal training that
0:14:26 came before me i am moving now not by
0:14:28 any will of my own but because there was
0:14:30 an uninterrupted chain and in fact that
0:14:32 bottle was made out of necessity and all
0:14:34 this cracker was made out of necessity
0:14:35 my phone was everything is necessary in
0:14:37 that perspective so when we say from in
0:14:39 abstraction
0:14:40 we're removing without reference to what
0:14:42 the uninterrupted causal chain or the
0:14:44 antecedent uh cause of events whatever
0:14:45 it is so we're saying that's what we're
0:14:48 talking about this in isolation
0:14:50 cannot be necessary because if it was it
0:14:52 would not have had the beginning in the
0:14:54 form that it has
0:14:55 and so on
0:14:56 so that's why i mentioned the word
0:14:58 abstractly
0:15:02 any questions on that point uh the
0:15:04 second proof
0:15:07 is related to particularity
0:15:09 particularization no that's going to
0:15:11 come
0:15:12 okay third proof
0:15:16 anything that can be conceived of uh
0:15:18 otherwise an abstraction was arranged by
0:15:20 something else this is particularization
0:15:23 the universe could be conceived of
0:15:24 otherwise in abstraction therefore the
0:15:26 universe was arranged by something else
0:15:27 why because there's nothing within it
0:15:29 if it's if it can be conceived of
0:15:32 otherwise
0:15:33 in abstraction
0:15:34 it doesn't have a quality of necessity
0:15:37 that keeps it as it is pre-eternally and
0:15:40 post-eternally so for that reason it
0:15:43 requires that which is outside of it in
0:15:44 order to arrange it
0:15:47 it's impossible for something contingent
0:15:50 to
0:15:51 to give itself
0:15:52 you know the property of necessity
0:15:55 as as uh straightforward as that might
0:15:57 sound so in other words
0:15:58 if something has the potential and this
0:16:01 goes to kind of like
0:16:03 the whole actual potential discussion
0:16:04 that you know you've heard from
0:16:05 aristotle if something has the potential
0:16:07 to be otherwise
0:16:09 then
0:16:10 it cannot be necessary
0:16:13 if something it has the potential to be
0:16:15 otherwise it cannot be necessary what is
0:16:17 something what's an example of something
0:16:18 that has the potential to be otherwise
0:16:20 as we mentioned before like for example
0:16:22 the egg
0:16:24 the chicken's egg
0:16:26 your chicken's egg what is it it's
0:16:28 inside yolk and this and that and then
0:16:30 it becomes what
0:16:31 a chick
0:16:33 i'm not talking about ladies here let's
0:16:36 talk about the laser the chick is
0:16:37 actually an animal
0:16:39 now
0:16:40 the so the egg is a potential it's in a
0:16:42 potential state
0:16:44 and the fact that it's actualizing
0:16:46 indicates to us that there's something
0:16:48 outside of itself
0:16:51 creating change within it because it's
0:16:52 impossible that it's creating change
0:16:54 within itself
0:16:55 because if it is being created if it's
0:16:57 creating change within itself and it has
0:16:59 the capacity to do that then it would be
0:17:01 actual it wouldn't be potential and if
0:17:03 it's actual then it's independent or at
0:17:04 least it's not uh if it's purely actual
0:17:07 ashes
0:17:08 you know it's not contingent
0:17:12 and so this uh
0:17:14 if it could be another way it can be
0:17:15 rearranged you can squash it you can
0:17:17 break it you can smash it like i do with
0:17:19 an egg
0:17:20 then you can't say that this thing is
0:17:21 necessary how could it be necessary
0:17:23 necessary in what sense in form
0:17:26 in shape
0:17:27 in composition certainly not because if
0:17:30 it was
0:17:31 it would be an egg that i throw and
0:17:32 nothing will happen to it like a
0:17:34 bouncy ball or something but even then
0:17:36 with a bounce ball you can cut it in
0:17:37 pieces like you know something which is
0:17:40 necessary cannot be manipulated
0:17:41 basically
0:17:42 cannot be manipulated
0:17:44 like two plus two equals four do what
0:17:46 you want to it it's a metaphysical
0:17:48 fact that it will stay the same way
0:17:50 always
0:17:52 you know
0:17:53 so anything that can be conceived of
0:17:54 otherwise an abstraction
0:17:57 is contingent the universe can be
0:17:59 conceived of otherwise in abstraction
0:18:00 you can as razali mentions you can
0:18:02 conceive of a world
0:18:03 or universe where the revolutions of the
0:18:06 celestial spheres are the other way
0:18:08 it's not clockwise anti-clockwise for
0:18:11 example and if that's the case we've
0:18:12 already established that the
0:18:14 conceivability factor is there to make
0:18:16 this universe a different way
0:18:18 the jacket now this thing i'm wearing is
0:18:20 brown it could have been black could
0:18:21 have been blue could have been orange
0:18:22 could be any other color and it can
0:18:24 still be now i can change it so it's not
0:18:26 necessary it's also dependent you know
0:18:31 so this is the third proof any questions
0:18:33 on that
0:18:37 no
0:18:38 number four
0:18:41 the universe is fine-tuned for life by
0:18:44 necessity or contingency now the fact
0:18:46 that the universe is fine-tuned for life
0:18:48 it's not controversial at all
0:18:50 because the universe exists and life
0:18:52 exists
0:18:54 and
0:18:54 the constants are are fine-tuned for our
0:18:57 existence
0:18:58 okay that's that is i don't know if
0:18:59 anyone disagrees with that even the the
0:19:02 belligerent new atheists
0:19:04 they agree with that in fact uh richard
0:19:06 dawkins refers to as the goldilocks zone
0:19:08 everything is in the goldilocks i'm not
0:19:10 talking about by the way the
0:19:11 electromagnetic constant and the
0:19:12 gravitational constant we know that that
0:19:14 is within
0:19:15 those parameters but i'm not talking
0:19:17 even about that we spoke about this
0:19:18 before we're talking about
0:19:20 stability regulating uniformity the fact
0:19:23 that things are uniform and regular and
0:19:25 stable
0:19:26 but the
0:19:27 the universe is fine-tuned by for life
0:19:29 by a necessity of contingency
0:19:32 if it is fine-tuned by necessity then
0:19:34 the necessary system must account for
0:19:35 the necessary fact of fine tuning
0:19:37 because we said that existences precede
0:19:40 facts
0:19:42 existence is the most foundational thing
0:19:44 yeah
0:19:45 if it is fine-tuned by contingency then
0:19:47 a necessary system must exist must
0:19:49 account for a series of
0:19:51 for any series of contingencies the
0:19:53 universe is fine truth for life
0:19:54 therefore the universe is fine-tuned for
0:19:56 life by necessary existence why because
0:19:58 we've already explained why you need the
0:20:00 necessary existence in the proof one
0:20:05 so these four arguments here are not
0:20:07 cause-based arguments
0:20:10 you don't need cause for any of those
0:20:12 arguments the word cause is not even in
0:20:13 in any of those arguments because
0:20:15 someone will say i don't believe in
0:20:16 causation
0:20:18 or we haven't even used the word course
0:20:20 dependency
0:20:22 uh is something which we've mentioned
0:20:24 this before we'll mention it again
0:20:26 something which is dependent is
0:20:27 something which relies on something else
0:20:28 for its existence
0:20:31 a cause is something which brings rise
0:20:32 to phenomena
0:20:34 now there's a more technical
0:20:36 definition of the term cause which is
0:20:38 mentioned by john mackie for example in
0:20:40 his essay on it
0:20:42 whereas i'm paraphrasing but if a isn't
0:20:44 there if b isn't there
0:20:46 and a is the sufficient cause for b then
0:20:49 b wouldn't be there without a basically
0:20:50 something's that effect
0:20:53 but uh it's in the decision you can see
0:20:55 that i think i've i've mentioned it
0:20:57 somewhere that definition um
0:21:02 so yes
0:21:03 any questions on the fourth proof
0:21:06 now
0:21:07 the fifth one now anything that is made
0:21:09 up of pieces is cause the universe is
0:21:11 made up of pieces therefore the universe
0:21:12 is caused
0:21:14 very straightforward
0:21:17 obviously the the main thing here is the
0:21:19 compositional fallacy so actually now
0:21:20 you're saying that with just because
0:21:22 it's made up of pieces within the
0:21:24 universe therefore then we can say the
0:21:25 same thing
0:21:27 uh
0:21:29 ontologically
0:21:31 we can say causation itself is
0:21:32 metaphysical
0:21:34 so it's a metaphysical thing
0:21:36 but that would require some level of
0:21:37 argumentation but you can make a
0:21:39 cause-based argument we're not against
0:21:40 cause-based arguments but we're just
0:21:42 trying to divert all the objections to
0:21:43 be honest
0:21:45 um so if they don't like causation no
0:21:47 problem we can we can deal with
0:21:49 contingency aside from causation because
0:21:50 causation and contingency are not
0:21:53 they can be made mutually exclusive
0:21:57 dependency and causation can be made
0:21:59 mutually exclusive we mentioned this
0:22:00 before
0:22:01 i
0:22:02 can give birth to a child or not
0:22:05 i can give rise to which i can cause a
0:22:07 child
0:22:08 through other actions
0:22:09 you know and you know my wife will give
0:22:11 birth to the child so that the child is
0:22:13 caused by me
0:22:15 but it doesn't depend on me
0:22:17 because the ch if i die the child can
0:22:18 continue living
0:22:20 i can build a house
0:22:22 the house is caused by me
0:22:23 but if i die the house can continue
0:22:25 being there
0:22:26 so a cause is something which brings
0:22:27 rise to phenomena whereas something
0:22:29 which is dependent is something which is
0:22:31 reliant on something else for its
0:22:32 existence so causation and dependency
0:22:34 can be uh
0:22:36 extracted from one another or can be
0:22:37 made mutually exclusive from one another
0:22:39 so when
0:22:40 arguments one to four are not even
0:22:42 cause-based arguments argument five is a
0:22:44 code-based argument if you want to use
0:22:45 it you can if the person is not
0:22:46 skeptical cause
0:22:48 causal skeptic you know you can use the
0:22:50 argument if the guys have a causal scale
0:22:52 here i don't believe in causes really
0:22:53 you don't believe in causes if someone
0:22:55 says you i don't believe in causation
0:22:57 say you don't so you don't believe in
0:22:58 science then because
0:23:00 one of the presuppositions of science is
0:23:02 causation
0:23:05 even quantum physics
0:23:07 if you don't believe in cause if you
0:23:08 want to put an axioms as something to do
0:23:10 of retro causation as we said it's an
0:23:12 axiom usually meaning it's not something
0:23:14 they discover from
0:23:16 they don't discover quantum
0:23:19 retro causality from quantum physics
0:23:20 they they assume it before they start
0:23:23 in some models does that make sense
0:23:25 that's what we mean by axiom
0:23:27 they assume retro causality before they
0:23:29 start rather than they discover it
0:23:30 because of it but anyway even if you
0:23:32 wanted to do that you need some level of
0:23:33 causation even if it's retro
0:23:36 this is you need some kind of causation
0:23:40 now if you don't have some kind of
0:23:42 causation especially if you're talking
0:23:43 to an atheist who's a darwinian
0:23:44 evolutionist
0:23:46 how on earth
0:23:48 are you going to believe in darwinian
0:23:49 evolution
0:23:51 without causation
0:23:54 there's no way
0:23:56 what caused what
0:23:58 how did this transformation happen
0:24:01 you know
0:24:02 now obviously we're going to have a
0:24:03 session on darwinism
0:24:05 you know it's going to be less polemical
0:24:06 than you think
0:24:08 um because what i mean what what do we
0:24:10 really disagree with like is it a sliver
0:24:12 or the evolutionary project what 0.000
0:24:17 times a hundred one percent we disagree
0:24:19 we don't realize we don't care about
0:24:20 this evolution they think it's some
0:24:22 major argument against theism it's not
0:24:24 it's nothing
0:24:25 but if you're if someone doesn't believe
0:24:27 in a cause causation how can you believe
0:24:29 in
0:24:30 science
0:24:31 especially if you're a materialist this
0:24:32 is
0:24:33 very embarrassing actually
0:24:36 so you'd have to i i i
0:24:38 highlight that inconsistency so these
0:24:39 are the five proofs that i we've got in
0:24:41 place go on
0:24:43 fifth proof that first premise anything
0:24:45 made up of pieces is caused is that
0:24:48 based on
0:24:49 uh the fine tuning
0:24:52 how do we get that first premise
0:24:54 everything that
0:24:55 you get inductively
0:24:57 right you get it inductively and so this
0:25:00 argument by itself is susceptible to the
0:25:01 compositional fallacy uh objection even
0:25:04 though there's going to be a deadlock as
0:25:05 we said because we can't prove that the
0:25:07 situation is that it's red bricks versus
0:25:09 red wall and they can't prove the
0:25:11 situation is small pieces therefore big
0:25:14 and big whale there's a gridlock so in
0:25:16 order to break the gridlock we have to
0:25:17 speak about metaphysics
0:25:20 therefore an argument like this should
0:25:21 never be made in isolation
0:25:23 like these arguments are not good to be
0:25:24 made in isolation if you're speaking
0:25:25 academically with someone and you want
0:25:27 to avoid all the objections make the
0:25:29 argument ontologically and cosmology at
0:25:30 the same time that's why i think anyway
0:25:34 so what's the reason
0:25:35 because this inductively
0:25:39 found the first premise like what's the
0:25:41 reason why we say um pieces instead of
0:25:42 just the universe that it would be the
0:25:44 same argument right again what do you
0:25:45 mean i mean what's the what's the
0:25:47 purpose of having the proof five and
0:25:49 just changing universe to pieces i'm
0:25:52 trying to figure out what we're trying
0:25:53 to show here
0:25:56 sorry
0:25:57 in proof five yeah you mentioned
0:25:58 anything made up of pieces is caused
0:26:00 below you could have easily just said um
0:26:02 anything which at the beginning is
0:26:03 caused right like it's the same kind of
0:26:04 argument same kind of argument yeah but
0:26:06 not the only thing is okay good when you
0:26:08 why why did i not say everything that
0:26:10 everything that begins as a cause the
0:26:11 universe began to exist
0:26:13 no because the issue is now proven the
0:26:14 universe began to exist you have two
0:26:16 layers of problem
0:26:18 well if you're trying to prove that the
0:26:20 universe began to exist you have to go
0:26:21 and go and scientifically explain that
0:26:23 this one is it averts the scientific
0:26:25 discussion of trying to prove that the
0:26:27 oscillating universe model is false or
0:26:29 penrose is wrong what is the crc
0:26:31 whatever it's got camera where it's
0:26:32 called crt whatever the cyclical model
0:26:34 is wrong all those things we're not even
0:26:36 talking about we would say it jumps
0:26:38 straight to a compositional type of
0:26:39 argumentation so this
0:26:41 it diverts and the the the point here is
0:26:44 you're trying to divert
0:26:46 more objection
0:26:49 you want to make a statement that
0:26:51 doesn't have refutational
0:26:53 uh susceptibility or
0:26:55 you want to make as many statements as
0:26:57 you can in life
0:26:59 that are
0:27:01 least
0:27:02 prone and susceptible to refutation now
0:27:05 that might be impossible in marriage
0:27:08 but it's less it's more possible in
0:27:10 these kinds of situations when you think
0:27:12 about them anything i say in marriage is
0:27:14 false
0:27:16 in some in some cases
0:27:18 come on
0:27:20 she knows it's true
0:27:24 um
0:27:25 now
0:27:26 we've done this before but we'll do it
0:27:27 again the arguments for oneness
0:27:30 the first argument from oneness it goes
0:27:32 as follows why is it one necessary
0:27:34 existence why is it not a plethora a
0:27:35 multiplicity of multiple uh necessary
0:27:38 existences
0:27:39 all together or is it just one
0:27:42 so we say if a necessary existence is in
0:27:45 existence that cannot be any other way
0:27:46 there cannot be more than one
0:27:48 and necessary existence
0:27:50 cannot be another way therefore
0:27:53 there cannot be more than one existence
0:27:54 why
0:27:55 because if you have god one and god two
0:27:58 so-called yeah
0:28:00 and god one is meant to be something
0:28:01 that there's it can't be any other way
0:28:03 but god too has a differentiating factor
0:28:06 which differentiates it from god one
0:28:08 that differentiating factor which
0:28:10 differentiates it from god one
0:28:12 indicates that god too is contingent
0:28:15 because it can be conceived of in
0:28:16 another way and the evidence of that is
0:28:18 that it has a so-called differentiating
0:28:20 factor
0:28:21 all that both of the so-called god one
0:28:23 and god two are both contingent so
0:28:25 you've got two options either both are
0:28:26 contingent or one of them is contingent
0:28:28 but it's impossible for the both of them
0:28:29 to be necessary
0:28:32 and that disqualifies the trinity from
0:28:34 being true
0:28:37 you could never imagine
0:28:39 in life
0:28:42 a god one so we could never imagine in
0:28:45 life
0:28:46 uh god one because if you can imagine
0:28:47 them it means if god's one is there and
0:28:50 god too is there and god too has
0:28:52 something which separates himself or
0:28:54 herself or itself or whatever self from
0:28:57 god one
0:28:59 then that differentiating factor
0:29:00 indicates that because we said necessary
0:29:02 existence is something that cannot be
0:29:04 any other way
0:29:05 but if
0:29:06 god two has a hat on
0:29:08 p adamson makes us uh
0:29:10 p adamson makes us discuss he he gives
0:29:12 this example i'm going to give him
0:29:13 credit for it in uh
0:29:14 his discussion of avicenna if he's god
0:29:16 what two has a hat on that hat indicates
0:29:18 it's got two's uh
0:29:20 he's got a moustache i think he gets it
0:29:22 whatever you know this
0:29:24 factor we've got two indicates that it's
0:29:26 contingent because it can be an avoid
0:29:28 you can imagine it without a mustache
0:29:31 or a hat or something it's a ridiculous
0:29:33 example but
0:29:35 any any differentiating factor which
0:29:37 make it possible for
0:29:39 entity two or got two to be any other
0:29:41 way
0:29:42 makes it uh makes it impossible for that
0:29:45 thing that we're talking about to be
0:29:47 necessary because a necessary being is
0:29:48 something that cannot be any other way
0:29:50 just like two plus two equals four
0:29:51 cannot be another five or six or three
0:29:54 it's it's it's incorrigible
0:29:56 so like i said necessary being can we
0:29:58 can never imagine that necessary
0:30:01 physically
0:30:02 it's not yeah well we don't even
0:30:04 attribute attribute physicality to fact
0:30:06 we we do the opposite we we we attribute
0:30:09 incorporality to
0:30:10 the necessary existence it can't be
0:30:12 physical because a physical thing is
0:30:13 made up of parts it's made up of
0:30:15 dependent things it's contingent and so
0:30:17 on and therefore it's impossible for it
0:30:18 to be necessary
0:30:21 you see does that make sense any
0:30:23 questions on the the this okay the
0:30:25 second one is
0:30:28 if the necessary existence is
0:30:29 responsible for all other things in
0:30:31 existence then the necessary existence
0:30:33 has capacity of all other things in
0:30:36 existence
0:30:37 over all things in existence
0:30:40 the necessary existence is responsible
0:30:42 for all other things in existence
0:30:44 therefore the necessary existence has
0:30:46 capacity over all things in existence
0:30:48 continued yeah so this is two parts
0:30:51 if the necessary existence has ultimate
0:30:52 capacity of over all things in existence
0:30:55 nothing other than the necessary
0:30:57 existence is over all things capable
0:31:00 because if it's the the main thing
0:31:02 that's responsible and has the ultimate
0:31:03 it's the ultimate source through which
0:31:05 everything else
0:31:07 uh has its
0:31:08 um
0:31:09 is
0:31:10 it's the ultimate source of existence
0:31:12 for everything contingent
0:31:14 then that means that this qualifies
0:31:15 anything contingent by necessity from
0:31:18 being the ultimate source of everything
0:31:19 that's contingent
0:31:21 this kind of goes back to what we were
0:31:22 talking about in cena when we said that
0:31:24 if if there is a set of contingent
0:31:26 things
0:31:28 then it's impossible to think
0:31:29 that there's a necessary thing within
0:31:31 that set because the set of contingent
0:31:33 things describes everything that's
0:31:34 contingent
0:31:36 so if that case if you have something
0:31:38 which is the source of all things in
0:31:40 existence and it has capacity over them
0:31:42 then
0:31:44 the necessary existence has capacity of
0:31:46 all things therefore the necessary
0:31:47 existence is over all things
0:31:51 is over all things paper this is what
0:31:52 comes up in the quran all the time this
0:31:54 exact phraseology over all actually i
0:31:56 got it from there
0:31:58 of all things capable yes
0:32:00 um
0:32:02 kind of like begging the question
0:32:03 because in the first premise like we're
0:32:04 not exactly trying to prove
0:32:06 why you'll give me which one uh because
0:32:09 you're basically because um if an
0:32:11 association is responsible for all other
0:32:12 things in existence isn't this exactly
0:32:14 what you're trying to prove though yeah
0:32:16 but that we don't we don't establish
0:32:17 that through this argument we establish
0:32:19 that through the first argument we make
0:32:20 that's why these arguments have to be
0:32:22 put together so we've already argued
0:32:24 that the necessary existence we don't
0:32:26 we're not going to present this by
0:32:27 itself we're going to prove that
0:32:28 necessary existence is a necessary
0:32:29 existence first and that it's
0:32:31 responsible for whatever and now we're
0:32:33 saying well if that's the case because
0:32:35 this is trying to prove oneness why
0:32:37 there's only one of them
0:32:38 sorry in the first one didn't we already
0:32:40 prove oneness though yeah but this is
0:32:41 two this is a different line now i'm
0:32:43 giving you another argument to prove on
0:32:45 this the this draws us inspiration yeah
0:32:49 from the quranic verse and it's called
0:32:51 daliru tamannaah
0:32:53 the the evidence of exclusion
0:32:55 mata
0:33:01 that god
0:33:03 didn't take a son and he doesn't have
0:33:05 any god with him
0:33:07 if that was the case they would have
0:33:08 tried to strip away all of the things
0:33:10 that they
0:33:12 that they created and they would have
0:33:13 tried to dominate one another
0:33:16 so in other words you can't have two
0:33:19 all-powerful agencies
0:33:22 because all powerful means you have all
0:33:23 the power now if if you have all the
0:33:25 power and there's another thing with all
0:33:27 the power you've got two things of all
0:33:28 the power how does that work
0:33:31 that contradicts the fact that the first
0:33:32 thing has all the power
0:33:34 if this is
0:33:35 all things capable how how could this
0:33:37 one be over all things capable and this
0:33:38 one be over with this cable that must be
0:33:40 one of them is not of all things capable
0:33:42 or both of them are what over not over
0:33:44 all things people that's that's by
0:33:46 necessity
0:33:47 because that's the thing right
0:33:49 and that's the thing so if they both of
0:33:51 all things capable
0:33:53 either both not over all things capable
0:33:55 or one of them is over here but the
0:33:56 other one is not
0:33:58 that's these are the logical
0:34:00 possibilities
0:34:06 contingent things capable
0:34:10 well you can say that if you want all
0:34:11 things capable but
0:34:13 even if we say all things yeah we're
0:34:15 things we're only referring to
0:34:17 because it's just because someone might
0:34:18 come and say okay what about like square
0:34:20 circles okay great great what you're
0:34:21 trying to say yeah so uh
0:34:23 the impossible existences okay
0:34:25 impossible existences are not things
0:34:29 like a squared circle is not a thing
0:34:30 it's an unintelligible we would say it's
0:34:32 an unintelligible it's not something
0:34:34 which can exist in the real world the
0:34:35 meaning itself only carries grammatical
0:34:38 value
0:34:39 like if you say there is a squared
0:34:41 circle that sentence has only
0:34:43 grammatical value but that sentence does
0:34:45 not have any real world implication you
0:34:47 will not be able to find
0:34:49 a squared
0:34:50 circle or a square triangle because
0:34:53 that we mentioned this before kind of
0:34:55 alluded to is that at
0:34:57 um the things
0:34:59 that need to be in place for to give a
0:35:00 triangular triangularity
0:35:04 cannot be in place at the same time
0:35:07 giving a triangular triangularity and a
0:35:09 circular circularity
0:35:12 the two things cannot exist at the same
0:35:14 time because in essence a triangle with
0:35:17 this triangularity is differentiated
0:35:19 from a circle of circularity they have
0:35:21 different essences and and they cannot
0:35:22 coexist
0:35:25 and so and so the idea of a square
0:35:27 triangle square circle ever is
0:35:29 those two things cannot coexist
0:35:32 um
0:35:34 together
0:35:35 in at the same place at the same time in
0:35:37 the same way
0:35:39 yeah and as such
0:35:43 impossible existences are not things
0:35:47 so can god create a rock so heavy that
0:35:48 he can't lift
0:35:51 that that would suggest
0:35:52 that
0:35:54 you can have a god that's a over all
0:35:56 things capable and b
0:35:58 not of all things capable at the same
0:36:00 time
0:36:01 which is a squared circle scenario it's
0:36:03 the same thing as saying can god
0:36:06 who created god
0:36:08 it's like saying what
0:36:09 who or who
0:36:11 who started god who began god it's like
0:36:14 saying who gay who who created the one
0:36:16 is uncreated which is a the question
0:36:19 itself has a presupposition not a
0:36:21 question cannot be a contradiction by
0:36:22 the way but it has it can have a
0:36:24 presupposition which is contradictory so
0:36:26 the contra the presupposition of the
0:36:28 question is that there is conceivable
0:36:31 that there can be something which is
0:36:32 created and uncreated at the same time
0:36:37 so when they say can god lift a rock so
0:36:39 heavy that he can't lift so uh to be
0:36:41 facetious like i said get the rock and
0:36:42 uh you've disproven god
0:36:44 that rock is the evidence of that this
0:36:46 proof of you know that rock there
0:36:49 but the idea is
0:36:51 what you're essentially presupposing is
0:36:53 that they can be
0:36:55 uh
0:36:56 a capable uncapable god or a god that is
0:36:59 over all things capable at the same time
0:37:01 is not of all things able at the same
0:37:02 time
0:37:03 and that is an impossible state of
0:37:05 affairs and therefore it's not a thing
0:37:07 and therefore it's not a thing that god
0:37:09 can be of all things powerful of because
0:37:10 it's not even a thing it's an
0:37:11 unintelligible
0:37:13 likewise can uh who created god
0:37:17 which michael roos
0:37:18 when he was a second richard dawkins
0:37:20 because that was one of his main
0:37:21 questions his god delusion he said
0:37:24 uh richard dawkins screaming around who
0:37:26 created god like a school boy he's
0:37:28 embarrassing the atheists he said
0:37:30 because he obviously michael is an
0:37:31 atheist himself i mean he's a top-notch
0:37:34 atheist philosopher he said this is
0:37:35 embarrassing we know we know the answers
0:37:37 to these questions and these are the
0:37:38 answers there are stock answers that
0:37:39 have been there for millennia not even
0:37:42 centuries
0:37:43 and they're there and so what we're
0:37:45 saying is that the question itself has
0:37:47 presuppositions if they say can god
0:37:49 create contradictions
0:37:51 say contradictions themselves are
0:37:52 unintelligibles
0:37:55 you see
0:37:56 and and so
0:37:58 um
0:37:59 that's uh we exclude from the category
0:38:02 of things impossible existences they're
0:38:04 not shaped
0:38:05 in the first place
0:38:07 i had like a response to this that i
0:38:08 like you know yes you know kind of god
0:38:10 create a rock so if you can't lift he's
0:38:11 like it's like if i ask you like you
0:38:13 know have you stopped beating your wife
0:38:14 or something like that you know you're
0:38:15 assuming that he has a wife and you're
0:38:17 assuming that see what do you say like
0:38:18 if you are demanding yes no answer to
0:38:20 that question either way you're finished
0:38:21 then yeah that's right that's right have
0:38:23 you stopped beating your wife like if
0:38:25 you say yes then you know you admit you
0:38:27 used to beat her before yeah if you say
0:38:29 no there are some questions which are
0:38:31 ridiculous like if someone says to you
0:38:32 okay okay what day of the week is it yes
0:38:34 or no
0:38:37 do your answer on my question is that
0:38:38 yes or no is it what day of the week was
0:38:40 yes or no it's a category mistake
0:38:42 fallacy the question itself is
0:38:44 problematic
0:38:45 you know
0:38:46 but you have to see you have to really
0:38:48 know where the questions are where it's
0:38:49 like that
0:38:51 if if the necessary we talked about this
0:38:53 the third argument the last segment for
0:38:55 the day
0:38:56 in order for nature to be stable uniform
0:38:58 and regular there must be only one
0:38:59 external
0:39:00 agent arranging the world nature is
0:39:02 stable uniform regular therefore there
0:39:04 must be only one external agent arranged
0:39:06 in the world why
0:39:08 this is an argument from if you like
0:39:10 it's probabilistic but it's a very
0:39:11 strong ballistic argument because it's
0:39:12 saying if you have two
0:39:16 minds
0:39:18 if you have two wills
0:39:19 and this you can you can make the
0:39:20 argument in a non-probabilistic way i
0:39:22 say if you have two wills two ultimate
0:39:24 wills
0:39:25 and both of them
0:39:26 are in ultimate control of the world
0:39:29 okay
0:39:31 then what happens
0:39:32 then
0:39:34 decision-making when go back to
0:39:35 particularization is not centralized and
0:39:38 as such we don't expect to see results
0:39:41 in nature
0:39:42 which indicate centralized decision
0:39:44 making
0:39:45 so chaotic order would ensue the quran
0:39:47 says
0:39:49 you know
0:39:51 it says
0:39:56 if there were any gods other than allah
0:39:58 then the universe heavens and earth
0:39:59 would have been corrupt
0:40:06 do you know there's another verse sorry
0:40:07 i was just thinking about there's
0:40:09 another verse which is quite similar
0:40:13 which in suzu
0:40:15 uh
0:40:16 where it says
0:40:18 this is an interesting verse
0:40:27 if the truth has followed their desires
0:40:30 then the heavens and earth would have
0:40:31 been destroyed and whatever is inside of
0:40:33 them
0:40:34 because our desires are volatile
0:40:38 you know if our desires which are
0:40:41 hedonistic and volatile and
0:40:42 unpredictable
0:40:44 were what was in control of the universe
0:40:46 the universe would have been corrupt
0:40:48 because what you require
0:40:49 is a will which is intelligent
0:40:53 and non-emotional if you like
0:40:55 in order for
0:40:56 nature to be regular stable in uniform
0:40:58 so basically the argument here in the
0:40:59 quran is the fact that nature is uniform
0:41:02 stable than regular
0:41:03 is indicative of a fact that you have a
0:41:07 uniform will
0:41:08 an intelligent will
0:41:10 uh which decides on how the order of the
0:41:13 universe should be
0:41:14 and we said already that regularity
0:41:16 stability and uniformity are not things
0:41:19 which you discover
0:41:20 by science they are
0:41:22 pre-presuppositions of science in other
0:41:24 words you must presume
0:41:27 uniformity stability and regularity
0:41:29 before you start the scientific
0:41:30 enterprise
0:41:32 because if you don't as we said
0:41:35 if you if we said that water boils at or
0:41:38 it freezes uh so it boils 100 degrees
0:41:40 today
0:41:41 and tomorrow will boil a thousand and
0:41:43 after tomorrow it won't even boil at all
0:41:46 or whatever it is then we can't even do
0:41:48 science because every time we do an
0:41:50 investigation under the same conditions
0:41:52 the results will be different so science
0:41:53 would be a fruitless enterprise and
0:41:56 that's what the quran you know alludes
0:41:57 to when it says
0:41:59 do you see any gaps in creation what
0:42:01 kind of gaps these kinds of gaps
0:42:05 the this is the uh the the the
0:42:08 construction of god who he had perfect
0:42:10 perfected everything
0:42:13 so what what kind of professions are you
0:42:14 talking about the fact there's no gaps
0:42:16 meaning it's regular it's stable it's
0:42:18 not unpredictable there's predictability
0:42:20 and if you don't believe these things
0:42:22 you can't do science
0:42:24 and so what explains this best that the
0:42:26 fact that you have a uniform centralized
0:42:29 will
0:42:30 like
0:42:32 as you would expect
0:42:34 and i gave the example before if i drove
0:42:36 a car
0:42:37 and um for example me and my wife drive
0:42:40 a car and we separate from each other or
0:42:41 someone me and someone else meet him
0:42:43 driver can we separate from you can't
0:42:44 see each other and i have one steering
0:42:46 wheel he has another zero and maybe four
0:42:48 of us and one guy in the back and this
0:42:50 guy and all of us have steering wheels
0:42:52 where's the car going we go around
0:42:53 itself like a dog
0:42:55 chasing his tail
0:42:57 especially if we don't have
0:42:57 communication with each other
0:42:59 which can't be assumed anyway well you'd
0:43:01 have to make a policy it's now the
0:43:03 burden of proof on the policies to argue
0:43:04 how they have communication and now
0:43:06 collaboration
0:43:08 and uh how to make decisions you know
0:43:10 these four and uh in addition when they
0:43:12 make this they're compromised but if
0:43:13 there's compromise that indicates
0:43:14 weakness on on the behalf and then you
0:43:16 go back to the first one if it's all
0:43:17 capable how can you be weak
0:43:20 you see
0:43:22 imagine each wheel was being dictated by
0:43:25 the steering wheel where would the car
0:43:26 go nowhere the fact that the universe is
0:43:28 moving in one direction or at least it's
0:43:31 harmonious predictable stable regular
0:43:33 which is
0:43:34 a incontrovertible and injurable fact
0:43:37 and something which cannot be uh
0:43:39 disputed is undisputed actually
0:43:42 something which you need to do science
0:43:44 is indicative of the fact that you have
0:43:45 a centralized decision maker of the
0:43:47 universe
0:43:49 you have two two sticks
0:43:52 and two just stick so you can go to
0:43:55 strings or whatever you want okay yeah
0:43:57 and you are never allowed uh there's
0:44:00 gonna be one person if you have two
0:44:02 pilots
0:44:03 and you decide before the flight who's
0:44:05 gonna be the one in charge of flying
0:44:07 touching there oh yeah you do that don't
0:44:08 you put your parts
0:44:11 so the other pilot will never touch the
0:44:14 joystick or the string until
0:44:17 until they decide to change
0:44:19 so you
0:44:20 all thames or at all times it's going to
0:44:22 be just one person
0:44:24 that's right and that's one of the
0:44:25 reasons that you would say that's an
0:44:26 even better example i think than my uh
0:44:28 my car examples
0:44:31 let's get some of these uh polo theaters
0:44:33 to go in an airplane that's been
0:44:34 dictated by four or five different uh
0:44:37 that's one like a big rule like a big
0:44:39 rule like you can't
0:44:41 you have to decide who's gonna be in
0:44:43 charge it's gonna be one and you have to
0:44:45 let that person in in a bit of
0:44:47 environment of accident or like an
0:44:49 emergency
0:44:51 you have to decide you have to let that
0:44:52 person
0:44:54 do everything you can you can't refer
0:44:57 because if you interfere you have the
0:44:58 problems you say one might decide to go
0:45:01 left a moment had to go right
0:45:03 these are these are the arguments for
0:45:05 oneness of god uh we will conclude with
0:45:07 that
0:45:07 uh thank you very much for listening to
0:45:09 our lectures and uh and our sessions
0:45:12 hopefully um benefited as much as we
0:45:15 have here wassalamualaikum