Londoniyyah - Part 12 - Objections to the Contingency Argument | Mohammed Hijab (2022-01-04) #

0:00:12 and welcome to another session where
0:00:14 we're going to be talking a little bit
0:00:15 more about the contingency argument for
0:00:18 god's existence now in this series the
0:00:20 focus has been on the contingency
0:00:22 argument or different types of
0:00:23 contingency arguments as we know
0:00:26 there are other arguments for god's
0:00:28 existence but before we continue let's
0:00:30 uh
0:00:32 let's review the proposition of the
0:00:33 contingency argument on the first slide
0:00:36 so it's written here so i'm going to
0:00:38 read it out
0:00:40 there cannot be a world the proposition
0:00:42 goes with only dependent things without
0:00:44 reference to an independent thing as
0:00:46 a depend as dependent things
0:00:49 cannot continue existing on their own
0:00:51 existence is only explicable with
0:00:53 reference to an independent existence
0:00:56 this is because this is because
0:00:58 impossible existence do not exist by
0:00:59 logical necessity
0:01:01 and dependent existence cannot genera uh
0:01:03 self-generate and or self-maintain
0:01:07 so let's focus on that last bit here
0:01:10 dependent existences cannot
0:01:12 self-generate and or self-maintain
0:01:14 there's two options
0:01:16 with this proposition either that the
0:01:18 interlocutor accepts it and agrees with
0:01:22 it or that the interlocutor disagrees
0:01:24 with them so if you say to the
0:01:26 interlocutor
0:01:28 dependent things
0:01:30 cannot self
0:01:32 generate and or self maintain
0:01:35 they can either say yes they can and
0:01:37 you're wrong or they can say yeah you're
0:01:38 right they cannot and you're right
0:01:40 there's no third option there it's
0:01:41 exhaustible
0:01:44 so if i were to put this into practice
0:01:47 or if i were to give
0:01:50 an example of this for example if i were
0:01:52 to say the universe
0:01:53 the universe
0:01:55 cannot
0:01:56 self-generate and or self-maintain
0:02:00 if the interlocutor says yes it can
0:02:03 so then he's disagreed with me if he
0:02:05 says no you're right it cannot
0:02:08 then they are
0:02:10 in agreement with me
0:02:12 yeah if i say a multiverse an infinite
0:02:14 multiverse
0:02:15 you've got two options either an
0:02:17 infinite multiverse
0:02:19 can
0:02:20 not self-generate or self-maintain or it
0:02:23 can self-generate or self-maintain
0:02:28 so to put this in more simple terms
0:02:31 the universe is either dependent or
0:02:33 independent the multiverse is either
0:02:34 dependent or independent
0:02:36 there's no other option here
0:02:38 either is dependent or independent now
0:02:40 how have we defined
0:02:43 dependence what is the definition of
0:02:45 dependency
0:02:49 something that uh
0:02:52 uh can't self-generate uh and can be
0:02:55 destructed it is something that is
0:02:56 destructible
0:02:58 and something that's uh that can't
0:03:00 generate on its own something that's
0:03:02 reliant on others for example existence
0:03:04 yes yes this part here for sure
0:03:06 something which relies on something else
0:03:08 for us is
0:03:09 existence
0:03:10 that's the definition of dependency now
0:03:12 who remembers the distinction
0:03:15 between
0:03:16 dependency and causation
0:03:19 what is what is causation
0:03:24 causation is bringing something into
0:03:25 existence uh dependence is uh dependent
0:03:28 but dependent thing existence uh
0:03:30 requires something else to continually
0:03:32 exist not only to come into existence
0:03:35 right great give me an example of uh
0:03:37 something which is caused into existence
0:03:38 and something which right yeah i think
0:03:40 we use the example of a child coming uh
0:03:42 being born
0:03:43 so
0:03:44 the father and mother is causing the
0:03:45 child to exist uh but the the child
0:03:48 doesn't depend on their parents uh to
0:03:49 exist so in other words the parents can
0:03:51 die and the father and mother can still
0:03:53 so the child can still exist
0:03:55 great so now we have differentiated
0:03:57 causation from dependency
0:03:59 and since we are talking here about
0:04:00 dependency we are not talking
0:04:02 necessarily about causation we are
0:04:03 talking about dependency
0:04:06 and so we say that okay well the
0:04:07 universe is either dependent or is
0:04:08 independent
0:04:10 this phone is either dependent or
0:04:12 independent
0:04:14 this phone now let's say this phone is
0:04:16 either dependent or independent for
0:04:20 in terms of being powered
0:04:22 now i know that my phone requires a
0:04:24 charger
0:04:25 i'm sure yours do as well and there's
0:04:28 someone who has some new technology
0:04:29 there
0:04:30 but this is the truth
0:04:32 now
0:04:34 in this case the phone is what is it
0:04:35 dependent or independent
0:04:37 it's dependent right
0:04:39 the same thing about us we are dependent
0:04:42 human being is dependent
0:04:44 now how do we know that the human being
0:04:46 is dependent
0:04:50 um for our continued existence like we
0:04:52 rely on other things
0:04:54 so things like food water
0:04:56 uh sleep yeah
0:04:58 yes
0:05:00 that's one way of finding out that we
0:05:02 rely on other things
0:05:05 that's true
0:05:06 another thing is that are we made up of
0:05:08 limited or unlimited number of things
0:05:11 yeah we're made up of a limited number
0:05:13 of things so we rely on these parts
0:05:16 to make us
0:05:17 as a whole
0:05:18 and so if someone were to say that the
0:05:21 universe
0:05:22 or that the multiverse
0:05:25 was
0:05:25 independent
0:05:27 what would you say
0:05:30 um the universe is dependent um because
0:05:33 it is made up of parts and it relies on
0:05:35 these parts
0:05:36 uh to be the universe
0:05:38 okay good what else would you say
0:05:41 but it could be added to and deducted
0:05:43 from yeah that shows us limitations
0:05:45 absolutely anything that is
0:05:48 susceptible to addition and subtraction
0:05:49 is limited by a necessity what else can
0:05:52 you say
0:05:55 at any given moment it's conceivable
0:05:57 that the universe could be in some other
0:05:58 way yeah brilliant fantastic so in other
0:06:01 words a universe or a multiverse cannot
0:06:04 be what necessary
0:06:07 it can't be the necessary existence it
0:06:08 can't be independent so we said the
0:06:10 universe is either dependent or
0:06:11 independent now if they say it's
0:06:13 independent the first thing i would
0:06:14 point out
0:06:15 is that they don't see an impossibility
0:06:17 of an independent being or thing or
0:06:20 entity into creation
0:06:22 so in other words if they say well the
0:06:24 universe is independent or that the
0:06:26 multiverse is independent
0:06:28 what they've fathomed
0:06:30 is that there can be such a thing as an
0:06:32 independent being
0:06:35 and this is what on what is independent
0:06:39 independent is well how do you define
0:06:41 independent
0:06:43 something
0:06:45 something that don't depends on anything
0:06:46 yeah it doesn't depend on anything you
0:06:48 can call it self-sufficient we're
0:06:49 talking about self-sufficiency
0:06:52 so
0:06:53 it doesn't depend on anything everything
0:06:55 depends upon it but it depends upon
0:06:57 nothing so if you can conceive or fathom
0:07:00 a world where that can be the case
0:07:02 already you've left what
0:07:04 you cannot you can no longer call
0:07:06 yourself something which is what
0:07:08 an atheist an atheist doesn't believe in
0:07:10 this
0:07:11 you know this is something an atheist
0:07:13 can't believe
0:07:15 so
0:07:16 you've got two things the universe slash
0:07:19 the infinite multiverse or a finite
0:07:22 multiverse any of those
0:07:23 categories there or positions they can
0:07:26 either be
0:07:27 dependent or independent now we've shown
0:07:30 why they can't be independent
0:07:32 so what do we need as something which is
0:07:34 independent
0:07:39 if something without something with
0:07:41 parts and which is limited and which
0:07:44 relies on something else for its
0:07:45 existence can't be independent
0:07:48 what qualities must something which is
0:07:49 independent have
0:07:52 i have no parts no parts
0:07:54 yeah i have no beginning have no
0:07:56 beginning yes so it's pre it's analysis
0:07:58 yeah
0:08:02 yeah it's post-eternal as well yes
0:08:05 depend on nothing um yes so
0:08:07 self-sufficient yes yeah good this is
0:08:09 correct
0:08:11 now if someone admits to this and
0:08:13 they've already believed that's it
0:08:14 that's that's we have reached the point
0:08:17 of agreement
0:08:18 so that's the first thing now these what
0:08:20 i'm about to
0:08:22 put forward to you today
0:08:24 are the five most common objections
0:08:27 to
0:08:28 this
0:08:30 uh line of argumentation the first is
0:08:32 the fallacy of composition now we've
0:08:33 covered this already but we'll cover it
0:08:35 again
0:08:36 someone will say well just because
0:08:41 inside of the universe there's causation
0:08:43 there's dependency it doesn't mean that
0:08:45 the universe itself is dependent and or
0:08:48 that the universe itself is caused
0:08:51 for example elephant is very big but
0:08:54 it's made up of very small pieces
0:08:57 just because the elephant is made up of
0:08:58 small pieces we can't conclude that the
0:09:00 elephant is small
0:09:04 now what's the response to this that we
0:09:05 covered
0:09:08 it's made of pieces
0:09:10 it's made out of pieces so what
0:09:13 so it depends on the pieces
0:09:15 right so so this is good right
0:09:18 if you take out or put in pieces or if
0:09:22 into
0:09:23 something this already indicates this
0:09:24 finitude or limitation
0:09:27 okay and all we're trying to prove is
0:09:29 that something which is susceptible
0:09:32 to additional subtraction is not
0:09:34 independent that's all we have to prove
0:09:37 that's the first thing the second thing
0:09:39 is
0:09:40 is what
0:09:42 something that can be
0:09:43 rearranged by definition can't be a
0:09:45 necessary existence because uh it's
0:09:47 possible to conceive it in different
0:09:49 ways yeah absolutely right so the
0:09:51 universe can be rearranged in another
0:09:53 way
0:09:54 therefore it's conceivable that it can
0:09:56 it can be another universe you know this
0:09:58 is not a fixer so the composition
0:10:00 fallacy
0:10:02 is more effective with the calam
0:10:04 cosmological argument
0:10:06 it's not as effective with the
0:10:08 contingency argument especially
0:10:10 considering
0:10:11 the ontological component
0:10:13 because the ontological component and
0:10:15 what do we mean by ontology
0:10:20 something that is in the mind yeah
0:10:21 something which we conceive in the mind
0:10:22 rather than something which is
0:10:25 the ontological component is that we can
0:10:26 conceive and conceptualize something
0:10:29 some other way
0:10:31 and so the universe can be
0:10:32 conceptualized therefore the universe is
0:10:34 not is not what
0:10:36 necessary correct
0:10:38 so the ontological aspect of this
0:10:40 response is not available in the same
0:10:43 terms in a cause-based argument which
0:10:46 makes the contingency argument in this
0:10:48 way
0:10:50 more able to ward off
0:10:53 the
0:10:54 refutation or the counter-attacks
0:10:57 of the atheist detractor
0:11:02 so that's the first thing the second
0:11:03 thing is
0:11:05 so we talked about the fallacy of
0:11:06 composition here
0:11:08 it's very important that we know
0:11:10 something when we use the word part
0:11:13 what we mean and what we don't mean
0:11:15 now if there is a study we spoke about
0:11:18 it before i'm not sure if anyone
0:11:19 remembers
0:11:20 it starts with an m which talks about
0:11:22 parts and holes what is it called
0:11:25 muriology so muriology is a study of
0:11:28 parts and holes it's a sub-branch of
0:11:30 logic
0:11:31 and the word part has
0:11:34 more than one definition
0:11:36 as you can see
0:11:37 a part can mean something which is
0:11:39 attached detached cognitively or
0:11:41 functionally salient
0:11:43 arbitrarily demarcated self-connected
0:11:46 homogeneous gerrymandered material
0:11:48 immaterial extended or unextended or
0:11:51 spatial or temporal
0:11:53 now we're not meaning all these terms
0:11:55 when we say par we are just meaning when
0:11:57 we say parts
0:11:58 that something cannot be
0:12:00 independent if it has parts is something
0:12:02 which can be attached or detached
0:12:04 this is all we're talking about when we
0:12:06 say part
0:12:07 because this is important theologically
0:12:09 that we narrow our definition of parts
0:12:12 because then someone will say well what
0:12:14 you mean by part is an attribute
0:12:16 and therefore you believe in a god with
0:12:18 99
0:12:19 it's not actually 99 but at least 99
0:12:21 attributes right that is um
0:12:24 it is unjustifiable
0:12:27 so we say no we don't mean that when we
0:12:29 in parts we mean
0:12:30 something which can be taken out
0:12:33 and put in like this straw
0:12:35 i don't know if i cut this thing up
0:12:36 right now if i you know
0:12:39 this
0:12:40 thing right here you know it's made up
0:12:42 of different parts as you can see it can
0:12:44 be disassembled right
0:12:47 the phone all of these things are made
0:12:49 up of
0:12:50 attachable or detachable parts
0:12:53 now someone might still have objection
0:12:55 with this but from an islamic
0:12:57 perspective we can never
0:12:59 you know
0:13:00 just theologically we can never say god
0:13:01 has parts that's impossible
0:13:04 this is not an issue
0:13:06 so
0:13:12 that is the first thing that's what
0:13:13 we're talking about the fallacy of
0:13:15 composition had to solve the fallacy of
0:13:16 composition
0:13:18 the strongest argument in my or counter
0:13:20 argument is an ontological one
0:13:23 okay because there's no way out
0:13:25 as we said before with the fallacy of
0:13:27 composition
0:13:28 the issue is that both
0:13:31 atheists and theists don't know what the
0:13:34 hole looks like
0:13:35 so we gave this example a few times i'll
0:13:37 give it again
0:13:39 if i say that a wall is made up of small
0:13:41 bricks it doesn't mean that the wall is
0:13:43 small
0:13:44 but if the wall is made up of red bricks
0:13:46 it can mean that the wall is red
0:13:49 so sometimes the part can have a
0:13:51 connection with the hole and sometimes
0:13:53 the part will not have a connection with
0:13:55 the hole
0:13:58 now
0:13:58 how do we know if the universe does have
0:14:01 it or is caused for instance yeah
0:14:04 we have to know
0:14:06 the whole now no one
0:14:08 has seen or has an encompassing view of
0:14:10 the universe as a whole
0:14:12 so if we were to have a strictly
0:14:14 cause-based argument this means gridlock
0:14:18 that's what this actually means
0:14:20 so if i were to say to you everything
0:14:21 that begins to exist has a cause the
0:14:23 universe began to exist and therefore
0:14:25 the universe had a cause
0:14:27 the composition argument is the
0:14:29 strongest counter-argument to this
0:14:32 because someone can say
0:14:33 well you don't know
0:14:35 if you're committing the fallacy of
0:14:37 composition or not
0:14:39 because just
0:14:40 as the universe has causes inside of it
0:14:42 it doesn't mean that the universe itself
0:14:44 has a course
0:14:45 just like you can have um
0:14:48 an elephant made up of small pieces but
0:14:50 the elephant itself can be big
0:14:53 so there's a disparate
0:14:55 you know thing between the hole and the
0:14:57 part
0:14:58 and what we say in return is
0:15:00 well this applies more to a cause-based
0:15:02 argument too than what
0:15:05 than a
0:15:06 contingency argument which has
0:15:07 ontological traits
0:15:09 so if we say well it can be conceived in
0:15:11 another way and therefore it's
0:15:13 contingent it's not necessary it can't
0:15:14 be independent it's finished
0:15:16 it's done
0:15:17 there's no counter-argument to that
0:15:18 counter-argument so it becomes checkmate
0:15:23 and at this point
0:15:25 we can proceed
0:15:27 now the second thing that we can talk
0:15:30 about is infinite regress now what do
0:15:31 you remember is different about the
0:15:33 contingency argument to the say the
0:15:35 kalam argument of al-ghazali that is
0:15:37 mentioned by william lane craig what's
0:15:40 different in terms of the way we
0:15:41 conceptualize or avicenna for example
0:15:44 conceptualizes infinity does he have
0:15:46 what's his views on infinity he allows
0:15:48 it to exist like he says that even if we
0:15:52 do um suppose we have like infinite um
0:15:55 universes
0:15:56 then this is fine
0:15:58 yes what does he not allow
0:16:03 that's the one right so
0:16:05 just like aristotle avicenna
0:16:07 differentiates between an infinite
0:16:09 regress of things
0:16:11 and an infinite regress of causes what
0:16:13 other thinker actually does the same
0:16:14 thing interestingly
0:16:16 from islamic theology
0:16:19 actually
0:16:20 and we know that because of hawaii
0:16:23 that god is perpetually creating into
0:16:26 the
0:16:26 to the past
0:16:28 and this is something he does believe
0:16:29 but he doesn't believe that the universe
0:16:30 is eternal this is false it's
0:16:33 propaganda
0:16:34 they say that you know
0:16:36 even samia believes the same thing as
0:16:38 they've been seen now which is false
0:16:39 it's absolutely it's wrong incorrect
0:16:42 even cena believes that the universe is
0:16:44 eternal
0:16:45 just like aristotle believed that ibn
0:16:46 tamiya doesn't believe that he believed
0:16:48 that there was something before the
0:16:50 universe and the god created something
0:16:51 before that and so something before that
0:16:54 and that each of those individual things
0:16:55 had a beginning
0:16:59 he based it on
0:17:00 allah's name
0:17:02 he is the perpetual creator
0:17:05 because this allah is called
0:17:08 in the quran but he's also called
0:17:10 which means he continually creates
0:17:13 so he said if this name was to be
0:17:14 realized
0:17:16 then he had to be creating perpetually
0:17:18 into the past
0:17:20 now this is an aberrational view it is
0:17:21 an aberrational view if you look at all
0:17:23 of the people that are spoken about this
0:17:25 he he's not like he's representing a
0:17:27 clear position of the self
0:17:30 and this might be controversial to some
0:17:31 people
0:17:32 i know it will be but he's not because
0:17:35 if you go back to the companions and the
0:17:37 celepha
0:17:38 they seem to indicate that there was
0:17:40 something that began
0:17:42 the creation it's mentioned
0:17:47 that have seen of this very clear either
0:17:49 the pen was the first thing to be
0:17:50 created what is
0:17:53 is it the water depend
0:17:55 this is a theological discussion
0:17:57 but on strictly logical grounds he
0:18:00 doesn't see any issues with there being
0:18:02 god creating perpetually into the past
0:18:04 like that and he has a good argument
0:18:06 he says well you guys believe in heaven
0:18:08 and hell
0:18:10 and heaven and hell you you know
0:18:12 this is a theological point heaven and
0:18:14 hell
0:18:15 is there going to be if you want things
0:18:17 infinitely and perpetually into the
0:18:19 future
0:18:20 he says is there any issue with that he
0:18:22 says there's no issue with that you
0:18:23 believe in it in fact
0:18:26 you're going to be in there forever
0:18:28 he said therefore
0:18:30 if there can be a perpetual creation
0:18:34 into the part into the future
0:18:36 there's no
0:18:37 that doesn't differentiate doesn't yeah
0:18:40 there's no difference between that and a
0:18:42 perpetual creation to the past
0:18:44 he said they're they're
0:18:45 epistemologically
0:18:47 uh similar
0:18:49 so logically if you're saying it's
0:18:50 impossible it's mohalaklan then you have
0:18:52 to drop the idea that there can be an
0:18:55 infinite create
0:18:56 level of creative things into the future
0:19:00 so this is argument i mean once again
0:19:02 you can have your own views on it i'm
0:19:03 not i don't care too much about it but
0:19:06 what's interesting for us on this point
0:19:08 is
0:19:09 if he allows it logically
0:19:11 then
0:19:13 uh
0:19:14 and he is
0:19:15 someone an atheist saying we believe in
0:19:17 an infinite multiverse
0:19:20 according to this kind of line of
0:19:21 reasoning there's no issue at all
0:19:25 because atheists use an infinite
0:19:27 multiverse as a substitute for god
0:19:30 but according to
0:19:32 very many opinions within islam
0:19:35 that can you can have an infinite
0:19:36 multiverse
0:19:38 but god is the one who is sustaining all
0:19:40 of it
0:19:41 is that purely theoretical
0:19:43 when they say multiverse because there's
0:19:45 no proof for any words yes yeah of
0:19:47 course it's just a mathematical concept
0:19:49 so obviously oh yeah physics specialist
0:19:51 please tell us more
0:19:52 so basically all of theoretical physics
0:19:54 is math so by definition it doesn't need
0:19:57 to have
0:19:58 any uh physical observation for you to
0:20:00 actually come up to a conclusion it's
0:20:02 basically maths and derivations of math
0:20:05 and you just make up make things up to
0:20:08 fix equation just say that you have a
0:20:10 gap in certain equation uh
0:20:12 you can create your own sort of formula
0:20:14 to fit that equation to solve it and
0:20:17 the solution that they come up with is a
0:20:19 multiverse but they're like 100
0:20:20 different more solutions that can come
0:20:22 up
0:20:23 but once again that's just math uh i can
0:20:25 you could basically do math to come up
0:20:27 with any conclusion that you want to and
0:20:29 from your studies university with
0:20:32 what kind of prominent theories of the
0:20:35 multiverse are there
0:20:37 are there theories that indicate
0:20:39 limited multiverse or is it
0:20:42 more about or do they actually
0:20:44 explicitly talk about infinite
0:20:45 multiverses
0:20:47 what kind of things do we have out there
0:20:48 it's mainly based on the so the quantum
0:20:51 phenomena of observation right
0:20:53 every observation is going to result in
0:20:55 two different things in the quantum
0:20:57 realm so as soon as you make an
0:20:58 observation it's no longer the same
0:21:00 system and what they do that to explain
0:21:03 that all they say is that uh okay as
0:21:06 soon as you make an observation
0:21:08 uh
0:21:08 another multiverse starts where you make
0:21:10 the other observation so it just splits
0:21:12 up into more and more and more and more
0:21:14 pieces add infinitive exactly right
0:21:16 right so this is exactly what we're
0:21:17 talking about
0:21:18 because they will use this as a
0:21:20 substitute for god
0:21:22 like in the theological space or in the
0:21:25 space of uh theist versus atheist
0:21:27 debates
0:21:28 and what will be the response we'll say
0:21:31 what is it all dependent on we go back
0:21:33 to our main point
0:21:36 because you know you've got all of these
0:21:37 observations that you're making but
0:21:39 you've got all this let's assume that
0:21:40 you have an actual a realist framework
0:21:43 here you have all of these multiverses
0:21:45 and this actual infinity we're not even
0:21:48 doubting that there's an infinity
0:21:50 we're not doing hazel's work of
0:21:52 cancelling infinity we're saying let
0:21:54 there be an affinity
0:21:56 and let there be an infinite number of
0:21:58 multiverses
0:21:59 but then we go back to
0:22:01 what question
0:22:03 what's the question
0:22:04 if they say if someone comes to you yes
0:22:06 either going to be dependent or
0:22:08 independent and why why can it not be
0:22:10 independent um because if you have
0:22:12 infinite multiverses then uh it's still
0:22:15 dependent because it's made up of parts
0:22:17 and
0:22:18 um and you conceive of it in another way
0:22:20 and you can subtract them and uh yeah
0:22:21 there you have it and what let's let's
0:22:25 pause and emphasize the point on
0:22:26 conceive of it in another way what do we
0:22:28 mean by this
0:22:30 give me an example of something you
0:22:31 can't conceive of in another way
0:22:35 a fact of some sorts
0:22:38 yeah two plus two two plus two equals
0:22:40 four yeah
0:22:41 so it's a necessary fact
0:22:44 yeah all right great so
0:22:46 uh the the infinite multiverse what
0:22:48 makes it different from this necessary
0:22:50 fact you can consider it like in
0:22:53 you know infinite universal universe
0:22:55 that's linear
0:22:56 for example or infinite universe that is
0:22:58 circular that depends on
0:23:01 the
0:23:02 so you have
0:23:04 a character b because c
0:23:06 or and then you have um
0:23:09 now but that wouldn't be infinite right
0:23:11 that would be fine right if it's a
0:23:13 circular in the way you've described i
0:23:14 know you're getting that
0:23:15 but let's let's stick with infinite
0:23:17 so you're on the right tracks
0:23:20 if it's an infinite multiverse it can be
0:23:22 conceived of in another way what do we
0:23:23 mean by that
0:23:29 anybody yeah you could rearrange it
0:23:31 and also in abstraction we can conceive
0:23:33 that it could be a rearranged in a
0:23:35 different way great give me an example
0:23:38 let's say we've got for the sake of
0:23:39 argument we've got a multiverse
0:23:41 obviously this is not how it works in uh
0:23:43 physics but let's just say universe one
0:23:45 university universe three ad infinitive
0:23:47 right how would that be conceived of in
0:23:49 another way so let's say the universe uh
0:23:51 uh
0:23:52 one because universe twenty universe two
0:23:54 called university
0:23:55 uh uh subtracting any idea of causation
0:23:57 right uh
0:23:59 like uh like you have one universe
0:24:02 where
0:24:03 uh but like this this universe right
0:24:05 then you have another universe where
0:24:06 maybe everyone has iron
0:24:09 uh
0:24:10 uh uh heads on their feet
0:24:12 right
0:24:13 you can conceive of like any different
0:24:15 kind of thing but the fact that you can
0:24:17 conceive of it right um that shows that
0:24:20 it is contingent so it's not necessary
0:24:23 that's one way of doing it so you can
0:24:25 say like
0:24:26 he said
0:24:27 you know you can conceive of the the
0:24:29 planets rotating there and like going
0:24:31 anti-clockwise you can conceive of them
0:24:32 going clockwise that's conceptually
0:24:34 possible
0:24:35 but there's something else which you
0:24:37 mentioned tariq in the beginning
0:24:39 about destructibility and
0:24:41 something about generation
0:24:42 and
0:24:43 destructibility
0:24:50 there are things which
0:24:51 did not exist in the universe which now
0:24:53 do exist
0:24:55 me and you are examples of that and if
0:24:57 they say well in energy it always
0:24:59 existed we're not talking about it we're
0:25:00 talking about something else which is
0:25:01 what
0:25:02 starts with f
0:25:05 form
0:25:07 right yeah yeah form so the forms of
0:25:09 things change that indicates that thing
0:25:11 is
0:25:12 it's potential it's not actual remember
0:25:14 this
0:25:15 and if something is potential it can't
0:25:17 be independent
0:25:21 you see
0:25:22 and so
0:25:23 you can do this in many different ways
0:25:26 but the multiverse cannot be an actual
0:25:29 independent thing
0:25:32 you see what we're doing here yeah but
0:25:33 if they say well we believe in infinite
0:25:34 multiverse and that's a substitute for
0:25:36 god
0:25:38 then we we show them
0:25:40 we go back to what we said before it's
0:25:41 either it's either dependent or
0:25:43 independent if they say it's independent
0:25:45 you show them that that disqualifies
0:25:47 them from atheism
0:25:49 but then you go on to show that actually
0:25:51 it's argumentum add absurd
0:25:53 you show them that if you can't have
0:25:55 that because actually it's made up of
0:25:56 limited parts
0:25:58 which many of which can be
0:26:00 if not all of which
0:26:02 can be conceived of as being removed
0:26:04 or not in existence
0:26:06 because a necessary existence is
0:26:08 something which is if it was removed
0:26:10 absurdities would occur
0:26:12 but by the removal of something which is
0:26:14 a contingent existence
0:26:16 from the universe no absurdities no
0:26:18 absurdities would occur at all
0:26:21 it doesn't challenge existence to remove
0:26:24 something possible and contingent or
0:26:26 dependent from it
0:26:28 it doesn't challenge the notion of
0:26:30 existence in any way
0:26:35 in fact this is what even cena says
0:26:38 he says and by the way this point here
0:26:40 is what avi rose he said you shouldn't
0:26:41 mention just to let you know
0:26:43 he said just stick to the idea that
0:26:45 things are destructible and
0:26:47 uh
0:26:48 and generatable and if they have
0:26:50 susceptibility for this
0:26:52 then but you know you can use whatever
0:26:55 you like this is this is what's out
0:26:56 there
0:26:57 now
0:26:58 so we've just mentioned two
0:27:00 of probably the most important
0:27:06 interrogations the third one is pretty
0:27:08 pathetic indeed
0:27:11 which is what bertrand russell said
0:27:13 one of the
0:27:15 forerunners of atheism intellectual
0:27:17 atheism in the last 100 years
0:27:21 and he was asked about these kinds of
0:27:22 things and you know he said
0:27:24 he said the universe just is
0:27:30 i have a child
0:27:31 i have three children as you know
0:27:35 well i have a three-year-old child
0:27:37 sometimes when she does something
0:27:40 and i ask her
0:27:42 why do you do that
0:27:44 yeah she looks at me and she says
0:27:46 one word
0:27:47 she says because
0:27:51 and i
0:27:52 sat with her one time
0:27:55 and i sat with the the boy as well the
0:27:57 five-year-old
0:28:00 and i explained to them
0:28:02 that this is no justification at all
0:28:08 and i and i warned them well this is a
0:28:10 true story
0:28:12 i said if
0:28:13 you take this level of justification
0:28:16 into your adult life
0:28:18 people will make a mockery of you
0:28:24 this is the truth
0:28:26 we don't expect we don't accept this
0:28:29 level of justification for any other
0:28:31 thing
0:28:32 yet when it comes to the universe
0:28:34 it becomes somehow shortlisted as one of
0:28:37 the major objections
0:28:40 intellectual objections by one of the
0:28:42 greatest in atheistic minds which is
0:28:45 bertrand russell
0:28:46 well why this is no joke this is what
0:28:48 they say
0:28:49 this is what he said you can check this
0:28:51 yourself
0:28:53 he said the universe just is
0:28:56 it seems like a child speaking not an
0:28:59 intellectual but somehow atheists latch
0:29:01 onto this
0:29:02 as if some great word has been spoken by
0:29:05 a noble prophet
0:29:08 it's worthy of reprimand
0:29:10 i say and richard zumban
0:29:13 who's
0:29:13 notable
0:29:14 notable christian
0:29:17 theologian and intellectual
0:29:19 he puts it in maybe a bit more academic
0:29:22 language than i just used
0:29:24 he said the objection fails to make any
0:29:26 crucial distinction between the universe
0:29:28 and other objects
0:29:30 and so it fails in its attempt to
0:29:32 prevent
0:29:33 at the outset a rational inquiry into
0:29:35 the issue
0:29:36 of whether the universe has some origin
0:29:38 outside of itself
0:29:40 in other words
0:29:42 he is saying you are specializing or
0:29:45 like discriminating
0:29:49 you do you're you're using
0:29:51 discriminatory language
0:29:53 with the universe that you would not use
0:29:55 with anything else
0:29:58 in existence
0:30:00 why is the universe the universe just is
0:30:02 you would you wouldn't
0:30:03 allow that level of
0:30:06 explanation
0:30:09 for any other question
0:30:12 that
0:30:13 you may be asked
0:30:16 and so it's it's no objection at all
0:30:20 it's not what yeah
0:30:22 for for the
0:30:24 necessary being
0:30:25 for god in this case
0:30:27 no but remember we've argued for the
0:30:29 necessary being using contingency no no
0:30:32 but if if he said
0:30:33 god is just god just is we don't just
0:30:35 say he just is yeah
0:30:38 we say that that it's a necessary
0:30:40 conclusion
0:30:43 yeah yeah so what we we don't say
0:30:46 allah just is that's not what we're
0:30:48 saying
0:30:50 we can't say if we said allah just is
0:30:52 they would they would not take us
0:30:53 seriously
0:30:55 but like my point is
0:30:57 so for the universe we can't use it
0:30:58 because it doesn't make sense
0:31:00 yeah the same way but for god we could
0:31:03 say it just is
0:31:05 yeah but
0:31:06 you could say that but it's no
0:31:07 explanation at all if you said that okay
0:31:09 you would not be proving anything by
0:31:11 saying he just is so okay well
0:31:14 you know he just isn't you know someone
0:31:16 can just say you know
0:31:17 anyone can especially when it's not you
0:31:19 know empirically verifiable
0:31:21 as as they would understand that's
0:31:22 that's the main thing
0:31:24 so
0:31:25 that's why we are using argumentation
0:31:27 we're not saying god just is you can't
0:31:29 just say that because then there's no
0:31:31 point there is no discussion after that
0:31:33 you are saying i don't want to talk
0:31:34 about it when you say that
0:31:36 like my child like my child
0:31:39 yeah yeah it's like i don't want to talk
0:31:40 about it like my when she says because
0:31:43 why did you drop that you know
0:31:45 coffee that she dropped yesterday or two
0:31:47 days ago whenever it was but she also
0:31:49 dropped it before
0:31:51 whatever she does she spilled something
0:31:53 you know the child she's two actually
0:31:55 not even three yet
0:31:56 why'd you do it
0:31:58 because
0:32:00 give me a reason
0:32:02 there's no reason
0:32:04 so it's not it's not something which
0:32:06 require don't always think you need to
0:32:08 respond there's no there's nothing here
0:32:09 to respond to
0:32:11 that person is failing
0:32:13 to engage
0:32:14 okay so this is the unfortunate
0:32:16 unfortunately it's the third most
0:32:19 commonly think uh excited thing i've
0:32:21 seen probably in this discussion a
0:32:23 fourth thing is retro causality i'm not
0:32:25 sure if you've heard of this
0:32:28 you have you heard of the grandfather
0:32:29 paradox
0:32:33 yeah please tell us yeah
0:32:35 well it's not like a physics concept
0:32:36 it's just like a thought yeah yeah go
0:32:38 ahead but basically if you uh if you go
0:32:40 back in time
0:32:41 which is also you know go against
0:32:43 physics but if you do somehow go back in
0:32:45 time and you kill your own grandfather
0:32:48 and this is before you're born so your
0:32:50 grandfather's let's say 15 years old and
0:32:51 you go back and you kill your own
0:32:53 grandfather
0:32:55 well then how did you go back in time to
0:32:56 kill your own grandfather if your
0:32:57 grandfather's dead how are you alive to
0:32:59 go back and kill him
0:33:02 that's basically the grandfather paradox
0:33:04 so in and you tell us more about this
0:33:07 because this is something which
0:33:09 in the quantum world
0:33:10 it's good that we have you today
0:33:13 let's go
0:33:15 but in the quantum world they talk about
0:33:17 retro causality and i've seen it being
0:33:19 used axiomatically
0:33:21 like as an axiom rather than as a
0:33:23 discovered thing
0:33:25 to what extent is this operationalized
0:33:27 in quantum physics
0:33:30 so once again the thing about quantum
0:33:32 physics is uh
0:33:34 you know the main problem with quantum
0:33:35 mechanics when you compare it to
0:33:36 classical mechanics is that
0:33:39 when you do go down to things that are
0:33:41 extremely extremely small things don't
0:33:43 work the way that they do in classical
0:33:46 physics and all the main issue with
0:33:48 quantum mechanics is that uh
0:33:50 is the is the issue of observation that
0:33:52 you can't really observe something and
0:33:54 find out its velocity and uh momentum
0:33:58 at the exact same time you can either
0:33:59 find out one but then the accuracy of
0:34:01 the other is going to reduce you can
0:34:02 find out the other but the accuracies of
0:34:04 that is going to reduce
0:34:05 and
0:34:06 what happens is
0:34:08 something a system
0:34:10 before you observe that system before
0:34:12 you make any measurement in the system
0:34:14 it's going to be a certain way as soon
0:34:16 as you make that observation
0:34:19 it's going to give you some other answer
0:34:21 so it's not going to be what it was
0:34:22 before you might be able to double split
0:34:24 exactly exactly
0:34:26 for the double state experience is like
0:34:28 possibly the best experiment we've ever
0:34:30 been done in quantum mechanics or even
0:34:31 though it doesn't explain anything but
0:34:33 it just shows you the nature of quantum
0:34:34 mechanics so what they just do at that
0:34:36 point is this is start making axioms
0:34:38 about quantum mechanics and they say
0:34:39 okay this is how it is we can't really
0:34:42 understand the whys but this is what it
0:34:44 seems to be happening we're not going to
0:34:46 question the whys we're going to make
0:34:47 these the axioms and we're just going to
0:34:49 go on and solve the math to figure out
0:34:51 more things yes and i have seen
0:34:53 like i've said
0:34:54 retro causality being used as an axiom
0:34:57 in quantum
0:34:59 physics
0:35:00 uh thank you that contribution is very
0:35:01 um
0:35:03 very useful but what we would say at
0:35:05 this point
0:35:06 remember we're making the argument from
0:35:07 dependency a contingency not necessarily
0:35:09 an argument from causation
0:35:11 we say what there's a difference between
0:35:14 causality and what
0:35:16 dependence
0:35:17 so do you know let's go back to the
0:35:19 grandfather paradox
0:35:21 the grandfather paradox the guy is going
0:35:23 back in time
0:35:25 killing his own grandfather
0:35:27 which is paradoxical because he wouldn't
0:35:28 be able to do that had he been what he
0:35:31 is
0:35:33 but
0:35:34 we said dependency is defined as some
0:35:37 something needing something else in
0:35:39 order to rely on it
0:35:42 and this is continual whereas causation
0:35:43 is not continual
0:35:46 so if you say
0:35:47 that the
0:35:49 the
0:35:50 the grandfather
0:35:53 caused
0:35:54 this the grandson
0:35:56 that's one thing but if we say he
0:35:58 depends on him
0:35:59 that's another
0:36:01 and now which means that there can be no
0:36:04 conceivable moment
0:36:06 where if a doesn't exist b does exist
0:36:10 does that make sense
0:36:11 with causation disconceivable that if a
0:36:13 doesn't exist
0:36:15 b which it caused can exist
0:36:17 but with dependency that's impossible
0:36:21 and if you say it is possible then
0:36:22 you're saying it's independent we go
0:36:24 back to square one
0:36:26 for example
0:36:27 if we say the universe
0:36:30 was caused by itself
0:36:35 the quranic question
0:36:36 was a was it created by itself was it
0:36:39 created by nothing
0:36:41 or
0:36:41 were they themselves the creators of
0:36:43 themselves
0:36:44 was the universe created from nothing
0:36:46 we're going to come to that it's
0:36:47 impossible right even lawrence krauss
0:36:48 tells us that
0:36:50 or what was it itself the creators of
0:36:52 itself was the universe did it create
0:36:54 itself
0:36:56 so they go with the second
0:36:58 one that the universe created itself
0:37:00 they actually they answer in the
0:37:01 positive some have tried it it's not
0:37:03 it's not popular in academia but it's
0:37:05 popular on youtube and these kind of
0:37:07 things you know stuff like that
0:37:10 so we say fine for the sake of argument
0:37:11 no problem the universe created itself
0:37:14 there you have it yeah
0:37:16 however this is not the problem the
0:37:17 problem is is the universe it's not just
0:37:20 that had to cause itself
0:37:21 is it had to keep itself in existence
0:37:24 and maintain itself and sustain itself
0:37:27 and if it does that then it's
0:37:29 independent and if it's independent then
0:37:31 once again we go back to our our main
0:37:33 question you see how powerful the thing
0:37:34 about depends on independence thing
0:37:37 because if you say that the universe
0:37:38 independent then the definition of
0:37:41 independent is it depends upon itself
0:37:43 that's what the definition of dependent
0:37:45 is so if it if you're saying it's always
0:37:48 requiring only itself in order to be
0:37:51 maintained
0:37:52 that is exactly how you define god
0:37:56 it's only dependent on itself
0:38:01 and so the retro causality thing
0:38:04 there's actually no discussion
0:38:06 whatsoever when it comes to dependence
0:38:08 because if the moment you say something
0:38:09 depends on itself you're saying it's
0:38:10 independent and the moment you're saying
0:38:12 it's independent you've you've lost out
0:38:15 on being an atheist
0:38:16 it's a disqualifier of atheism how's
0:38:18 that
0:38:19 disqualified atheism because is an
0:38:21 atheist just not believing in god like
0:38:24 it's not necessarily not believing in a
0:38:26 uh independent
0:38:28 or thing something being independent
0:38:31 the definition of an atheist there's two
0:38:33 major definitions but let's say it's the
0:38:35 lacking of existence a lacking of belief
0:38:38 no you lack belief in the existence of
0:38:40 god
0:38:41 now we have to ask the question what is
0:38:43 the minimum requirement for a god to be
0:38:44 a god
0:38:46 now the atheist has no right to tell us
0:38:48 what the word god means
0:38:50 the minimum minimum requirement is the
0:38:52 deistic explanation of god
0:38:54 or then after that classical thesis when
0:38:56 after that theism
0:38:58 a deistic explanation is that something
0:39:00 which brings about and or explains the
0:39:03 universe something like this
0:39:06 otherwise what is god then what we just
0:39:08 were talking about what were you talking
0:39:09 about here
0:39:10 we must be talking about something which
0:39:12 brought about what we have
0:39:14 and which everything that we have
0:39:16 depends on
0:39:17 that is the minimum deistic requirement
0:39:20 because there's another word the other
0:39:22 word is called deism you can't be an
0:39:24 atheist deist
0:39:26 otherwise the word dies loses his value
0:39:30 and now we're talking about semantics
0:39:31 but it's impossible to be
0:39:33 someone who lacks belief in god
0:39:36 but believes in a
0:39:38 kind of theistic conception of god
0:39:41 the then then the two words are your
0:39:44 then in that case what they're saying is
0:39:46 that
0:39:47 they're synonyms
0:39:48 they're not synonyms though that's if
0:39:50 they were synonyms they'd be
0:39:52 thesaurously
0:39:55 kind of you go in the thesaurus and
0:39:56 you'll find that the word is it's not a
0:39:58 synonym
0:39:59 so if they try and redefine ways to be
0:40:01 an atheist and that's capitulation
0:40:04 that means you've admitted that now you
0:40:07 have to redefine what it means to be an
0:40:09 atheist so you can maintain your label
0:40:12 he said that well you really happened
0:40:14 when somebody talks about someone's
0:40:16 atheism they're like no actually i'm an
0:40:17 agnostic atheist or actually i'm this
0:40:19 kind of but this argument takes them out
0:40:20 of agnosticism as well
0:40:23 it brings them into deisen at least a
0:40:25 deism
0:40:27 so think you can't be agnostic
0:40:30 from north source me i don't know like
0:40:32 the idea that you don't know whether
0:40:34 there's a god or
0:40:35 you know
0:40:36 or
0:40:37 but once again
0:40:38 if you subscribe to a deistic conception
0:40:40 of god you can no longer say you don't
0:40:41 know
0:40:43 so this is the powerless argument it
0:40:44 takes them out of agnosticism and it
0:40:46 takes them out of atheism
0:40:49 they can't have both they can't say
0:40:51 there's something which is independent
0:40:53 which everything depends upon and it
0:40:54 depends upon nothing i say well actually
0:40:55 i'm agnostic
0:40:57 because you've just nullified your
0:40:58 agnosticism
0:41:00 you're no longer agnostic and you're no
0:41:02 longer atheist you're the the minimum
0:41:05 you can say is your deist
0:41:07 that's the minimum
0:41:09 or a classical theist but you can't say
0:41:11 you're you can no longer say
0:41:13 you're an atheist or an agnostic
0:41:15 now that becomes now you're playing
0:41:17 around with language
0:41:19 and by by the way according to
0:41:21 all the definitions
0:41:24 now you have to change the dictionaries
0:41:25 now you have to go and change the
0:41:26 peer-reviewed stuff now you have to
0:41:29 you know
0:41:31 so
0:41:32 that's that's the objection number four
0:41:34 which is retro causality
0:41:38 well let's do the fifth objection first
0:41:40 and then he'll come in
0:41:45 the fifth objection is something from
0:41:46 nothing
0:41:48 now this is no objection at all
0:41:51 because even the one who said i believe
0:41:53 in something from nothing you can read
0:41:54 it yourself i'm not gonna read this
0:41:55 whole thing out because it's a waste of
0:41:57 time
0:41:58 but basically his understanding of
0:41:59 nothing is not nothing krause
0:42:02 this is not something which people were
0:42:04 talking about and this is not a serious
0:42:06 theory
0:42:07 that something can come from nothing
0:42:10 and so we've established
0:42:13 that the five major objections
0:42:16 are easy to kind of
0:42:18 explain
0:42:19 these are the five major objections by
0:42:21 the way
0:42:21 to this kind of argument
0:42:25 what we're going to do now
0:42:27 is we can do
0:42:29 some role-playing okay so we'll start
0:42:31 with
0:42:32 so we'll divide the class into people
0:42:34 atheist and agnostic and then
0:42:37 theist and we'll see what we can do
0:42:39 but with this particular session we have
0:42:42 concluded
0:42:44 hopefully in the next session we'll go
0:42:46 into more details on these issues with
0:42:47 salaam alaikum soon
0:42:58 you