Another Atheist Contemplating Theism | Podcast Highlight (2021-04-06) #

0:00:08 we've got the
0:00:09 the next guest coming on uh the the
0:00:11 legendary
0:00:12 carlos who we have had on previously
0:00:15 hello there carlos how are you
0:00:18 hello don't try and pick me up too man
0:00:22 how are you doing dude i'm good i'm good
0:00:25 yourselves guys you right
0:00:26 yeah not bad okay carlos we've already
0:00:29 had one
0:00:30 atheist change his views on the channel
0:00:34Laughter 0:00:38 all right okay yeah i mean uh
0:00:41 unfortunately
0:00:42 i have missed some of the conversation
0:00:43 so i hopefully you won't have to repeat
0:00:45 yourselves too much i think i've got the
0:00:47 general gist of it
0:00:48 and i did watch the part one of the
0:00:51 stream
0:00:52 where you were focusing on more of the
0:00:54 stage one so i think
0:00:56 just to set the scene i mean based on
0:00:59 the original discussion that you had
0:01:00 i i'm pretty much happy with you know
0:01:04 accepting that there has to be something
0:01:05 necessary
0:01:07 um as as the cause
0:01:11 or the reason for why everything exists
0:01:14 so
0:01:14 i'm pretty much happy with stage one
0:01:18 um i've not hired all of the arguments
0:01:21 for
0:01:21 your arguments for step two um
0:01:24 i suppose just from a general standpoint
0:01:27 and and you know previous thoughts i've
0:01:30 had on this particular question i don't
0:01:33 negate the existence of god or or
0:01:36 discount it for any
0:01:37 uh uh reason um i think it's
0:01:41 rational to believe that a god is
0:01:44 possible
0:01:44 um but i also think other possibilities
0:01:47 are rational
0:01:49 um and i think we kind of have a an
0:01:52 uh epistemological problem trying to get
0:01:55 to the bottom
0:01:56 of ontological conclusions because we
0:01:59 just we're just bound by that
0:02:02 distinction between
0:02:03 epistemology and ontology so i think
0:02:06 we're always going to have a problem
0:02:07 trying to
0:02:08 arrive at suitable conclusions that we
0:02:12 can be happy with
0:02:14 all we can do is get to approximations
0:02:18 because of the the other ontological
0:02:20 possibilities that are out there
0:02:22 such as deism pantheism naturalistic
0:02:25 pantheism
0:02:26 pan psychism um an evil god
0:02:30 you know there's many different um
0:02:32 possibilities on an ontological level
0:02:35 that could be the answer yeah so carlos
0:02:38 all we want to do is we
0:02:39 at this moment in time we want to say
0:02:41 can we go from a necessary
0:02:43 being yeah being here meaning foundation
0:02:46 to reality
0:02:47 and necessary being to a necessary being
0:02:50 that has conscious and chose to create
0:02:53 yeah so that's what we're trying to do
0:02:55 so from what i understand what you're
0:02:56 saying is you
0:02:57 are agnostic as to the nature of the
0:03:00 necessary being you believe a necessary
0:03:01 foundation
0:03:02 to reality exists but you're agnostic as
0:03:05 to whether it is
0:03:07 naturalistic or mechanistic or whether
0:03:10 it is
0:03:10 a willful agent what these would call
0:03:13 god
0:03:14 yeah yeah yeah pretty much and i think
0:03:16 with um you know without any
0:03:18 evidence to distinguish between the many
0:03:20 possibilities
0:03:22 um it's going to be difficult to try and
0:03:25 come to
0:03:26 a decision as to what you know you have
0:03:27 to be able to rule out the other
0:03:29 possibilities with your explanations i
0:03:31 think yeah so carlos really quickly uh
0:03:34 why did you come to the conclusion of a
0:03:36 necessary being in the first place
0:03:38 very very like very briefly um
0:03:41 i mean i think the kalam cosmological
0:03:43 argument is probably
0:03:44 among the best um types of arguments in
0:03:48 the contingency argument
0:03:50 as well i think these arguments work
0:03:52 very well from a logical point of view
0:03:54 but obviously we're using like
0:03:57 empirical knowledge to try and come to
0:04:01 ontological conclusions so i don't think
0:04:04 that we can even
0:04:06 if we can't yes yes i accept that
0:04:09 there's a necessary
0:04:10 uh existence for everything else to
0:04:12 exist
0:04:14 it's just that we can't
0:04:17 be settled on those ontological
0:04:19 conclusions and
0:04:21 unless we have evidence from an
0:04:24 ontological tier
0:04:25 of knowledge but what we can say
0:04:29 uh what you what you are saying it seems
0:04:31 to me is
0:04:32 is that okay whatever begins to exist as
0:04:35 a cause the universe began to exist
0:04:36 therefore the universe has a cause an
0:04:38 infinite regress is an impossibility
0:04:40 therefore there must be something which
0:04:41 is independent
0:04:43 yeah eternal that caused uh
0:04:46 contingent limited things to exist
0:04:49 that's one formulation of the argument
0:04:51 yeah
0:04:52 so we are saying something about we are
0:04:54 giving some sort of ontology to
0:04:56 this necessary being we're saying it's
0:04:59 not caused it's independent
0:05:02 it's eternal and it had the power to
0:05:04 create
0:05:05 these are the things that we're coming
0:05:06 to to the as
0:05:08 the logical entailment of the argument
0:05:12 yeah so there are positive things that
0:05:14 we are saying about
0:05:16 the ontology the being of this necessary
0:05:19 being
0:05:20 uh so you know we are saying these
0:05:22 things and the next question is is that
0:05:24 okay using the same
0:05:27 basically the same premises of how we
0:05:29 came to a necessary being
0:05:31 we're going to use the same premises and
0:05:32 say well this necessary being
0:05:34 the best explanation or the only
0:05:36 explanation is to assign a will
0:05:39 yeah intentionality and the reason why i
0:05:41 would say that
0:05:42 is what i said to justin earlier i don't
0:05:44 know if you heard that conversation with
0:05:46 justin
0:05:46 but i said to him that look if you've
0:05:48 got everything necessary
0:05:50 for an effect to take place so if
0:05:52 everything necessary in a cause
0:05:54 exists to cause an effect and the cause
0:05:58 itself is not uh you know it's for it
0:06:02 you know
0:06:02 has no choice but to cause then what
0:06:05 you're going to have you're going to
0:06:06 have an effect isn't it
0:06:07 does that make sense carlos yeah in a
0:06:09 deterministic way
0:06:10 yeah now if the cause is eternal
0:06:14 what would the effect be
0:06:17 if the cause was eternal yeah so when
0:06:20 you talk about the cause you mean the
0:06:22 necessary existence
0:06:23 yeah yeah so everything necessary for
0:06:25 this necessary existence to cause its
0:06:28 effect
0:06:29 exists because it's independent there's
0:06:32 nothing external to it
0:06:34 so if this eternal cause exists
0:06:38 and it did not and it was compelled to
0:06:40 create
0:06:41 yeah then the effect
0:06:44 would be what would it be temporal or
0:06:47 eternal
0:06:49 um would it be temporal or eternal i'd
0:06:54 say
0:06:54 meaning would it have a beginning or
0:06:56 would it always exist i think well
0:06:58 there's a possibility it could be either
0:07:01 depending on the nature of the necessary
0:07:04 existence
0:07:05 so the necessary existence has to cause
0:07:09 it cannot not cause is that what you
0:07:12 believe
0:07:13 is it no no i'm saying from this i'm
0:07:16 using this as an
0:07:17 an argument to say that if we accept
0:07:21 a necessary being does not have a will
0:07:24 meaning it was compelled to to have the
0:07:26 effect
0:07:27 or cause the effect then for the cause
0:07:30 to exist
0:07:31 you would have the effects yeah
0:07:34 it wouldn't necessitate the effect right
0:07:36 yeah it would necessitate
0:07:38 yeah now if the cause is eternal
0:07:41 the effect would have to also be eternal
0:07:44 yeah i could see where you're going with
0:07:46 that yeah yeah so
0:07:48 in the in the argument you've already
0:07:50 accepted
0:07:51 which is actually an infinite regress of
0:07:54 contingent limited beings is impossible
0:07:57 then we've accepted that contingent
0:08:00 beings
0:08:01 which also includes the universe had a
0:08:02 beginning to its existence
0:08:05 it didn't always exist
0:08:08 yeah but i mean when we when we say that
0:08:11 we're only talking about our
0:08:12 our space and our time and our matter
0:08:15 within that
0:08:16 so anything outside of that could be
0:08:18 subject to different laws
0:08:20 yeah but that's why carlos that's why i
0:08:22 asked you the question why did you come
0:08:24 to the conclusion of a necessary being
0:08:26 and you said well you know and we went
0:08:28 through the very briefly the
0:08:29 cosmological argument the contingency
0:08:31 argument because both these arguments
0:08:33 they're not necessarily talking about
0:08:35 different types of contingency they're
0:08:37 saying
0:08:37 all contingent being needs a necessary
0:08:39 foundation
0:08:40 the necessary foundation is the cause of
0:08:44 all contingent beings
0:08:45 but all contingent beings had a
0:08:47 beginning to their existence
0:08:51 so that's what that's what you've agreed
0:08:52 with you've agreed that contingent
0:08:54 beings
0:08:54 clues the universe had a beginning
0:08:57 there's something
0:08:58 outside of contingent beings that is the
0:09:00 cause which did not have a beginning is
0:09:02 eternal
0:09:04 this eternal cause yeah exists
0:09:08 but not an eternal effect
0:09:13 right temporal yeah yeah it's temporal
0:09:16 that's right
0:09:17 so on what basis can you say
0:09:21 that the eternal cause is necessitated
0:09:25 to cause an effect when the effect is
0:09:28 not
0:09:30 necessitated in this instance
0:09:34 the effect did not have to exist
0:09:38 the cause did not have to cause
0:09:41 the effect that's what we're coming to
0:09:43 in terms of our observation
0:09:45 of a temporal contingent uh universal
0:09:48 existence the cause did not have to
0:09:52 pause
0:09:53Music 0:09:56 then the effect would be eternal
0:10:02 yeah i don't know it's difficult because
0:10:06 the whole concept of time becomes very
0:10:09 difficult when you're talking about
0:10:10 eternal things
0:10:11 things that are contingent um because
0:10:14 obviously if you believe
0:10:15 um that god exists and god is eternal
0:10:19 then you believe in like in it like in
0:10:21 essentially an infinite past
0:10:24 and then then that become then that sort
0:10:27 of
0:10:28 goes outside of our understanding of
0:10:30 what time actually is
0:10:33 so when you're saying that yeah i've
0:10:35 gone so when you're saying
0:10:36 no i was going to i was going to say
0:10:37 color so i think we
0:10:39 the point being is this is that you
0:10:41 could still say
0:10:42 we we sort of agreed upon certain key
0:10:45 premises of the argument
0:10:47 that an infinite regress is impossible
0:10:50 yeah
0:10:50 so there can't be an eternal amount of
0:10:53 events of limited things
0:10:55 you know in this chain of series that's
0:10:57 impossible
0:10:58 there's an eternal cause that started
0:11:02 a chain of events yeah now if you're
0:11:05 like i said
0:11:06 the other way to argue the other way
0:11:08 would be to say okay
0:11:09 well the eternal cause was compelled to
0:11:13 call so therefore
0:11:14 it had to uh cause its effects
0:11:17 so the effect would have to be eternal
0:11:20 yeah
0:11:21 so that's just the other way of arguing
0:11:22 it that's what you would say okay so
0:11:24 therefore
0:11:25 the universe and contingent things are
0:11:27 eternal in infinite regresses
0:11:29 exists that explains or that
0:11:32 that that allows us to be in this
0:11:35 agnostic position
0:11:37 of saying well is the uh nesso being a
0:11:40 creator of mechanical force but i'm
0:11:42 saying we're not allowed to be an
0:11:43 agnostic position because we've already
0:11:45 accepted an infinite regress of
0:11:47 contingent beings is impossible
0:11:49 yeah so it had a beginning there's a
0:11:51 beginning in the chain
0:11:53 yeah which therefore means it's not
0:11:55 eternal
0:11:57 what however you want to frame time
0:11:59 relational idealistic
0:12:01 objective you however you want to frame
0:12:02 time it had a beginning
0:12:05 yeah whereas this cause did not have a
0:12:08 beginning
0:12:08 therefore the cause was not compelled
0:12:12 to cause the effect
0:12:15 right okay that's what we observe
0:12:18 so like i said we can we're already
0:12:20 making ontological
0:12:21 uh you know positive claims about the
0:12:24 ontology of this necessary being that
0:12:25 it's eternal that it's
0:12:27 independent nothing external to it that
0:12:30 it caused
0:12:31 and created contingent things we're
0:12:33 already making that and i'm saying the
0:12:34 other thing that we can make
0:12:36 as a another property is that the cause
0:12:39 is necessary being
0:12:40 is not compelled to create
0:12:44 which means it chose to create that's
0:12:47 the other attribute and property would
0:12:50 attribute to the necessary being this
0:12:51 doesn't necessarily mean that therefore
0:12:53 you need to make a muslim carlos
0:12:55 i'm not saying that all i'm saying is
0:12:58 that it
0:12:59 takes you from just being a simple
0:13:01 agnostic
0:13:02 atheist to somebody who would say that
0:13:04 actually theism
0:13:06 has a strong rational foundation for it
0:13:10 yeah in fact i don't know if you can go
0:13:13 straight to theism though because you've
0:13:14 still got deism
0:13:17 well if you if you want deism yeah you
0:13:20 could
0:13:20 you could argue for deism yeah but
0:13:22 you're not arguing for atheism anymore
0:13:26 i think jake wanted to comment yeah yeah
0:13:29 go for it
0:13:30 now i was just gonna say i mean what's
0:13:33 the dichotomy that you're drawing
0:13:35 between deism and theism
0:13:39 um well obviously with deism it's to
0:13:42 suggest that
0:13:42 god exists but either
0:13:46 doesn't care or doesn't intervene
0:13:49 with the natural world or or is
0:13:52 you know human beings or anything like
0:13:54 that that's the major distinction so
0:13:56 that's what i'm saying you can you
0:13:57 couldn't jump from the arguments that
0:13:59 you've made to
0:14:00 straight to theism you'd need a few more
0:14:02 steps yeah we just mean that god exists
0:14:05 yeah but i i would even say that it is
0:14:07 possible
0:14:08 if we're saying that these things are
0:14:09 dependent upon god
0:14:11 that they're permanent dependent they
0:14:12 never become independent from him and so
0:14:14 theism itself as this position that god
0:14:17 creates things
0:14:18 and then leaves things to kind of go on
0:14:20 without him
0:14:22 um is to suggest these things become
0:14:24 independent in a way
0:14:25 and i think we've give good arguments to
0:14:27 suggest that this is absurd that these
0:14:29 things are dependent upon the thing
0:14:31 that that necessary being and so if
0:14:34 you're
0:14:34 willing to uh attribute at least a will
0:14:38 um to this necessary being and
0:14:42 we can get to the conclusion that it's
0:14:43 consistently
0:14:45 um giving everything that it has
0:14:49 to it and sustaining all things
0:14:51 constantly
0:14:52 during their existence bringing things
0:14:54 into being
0:14:55 taking them out of being then there is
0:14:57 this constant
0:14:59 um interaction between this necessary
0:15:02 being and the things that it's creating
0:15:04 and sustaining
0:15:05 and so it's it becomes i would say
0:15:08 it ends up being a very difficult
0:15:09 position to sort of sustain
0:15:11 for the deist at this point if you're if
0:15:15 that is obviously you're um willing to
0:15:17 concede on the points that
0:15:18 uh the all dependent things are
0:15:21 dependent on the necessary being
0:15:23 and they are constantly dependent upon
0:15:25 him or
0:15:26 it if you if you don't want to go as far
0:15:28 as seeing him um
0:15:30 so you know and in that case there would
0:15:31 need to be extra arguments
0:15:33 on behalf of the deist in order to lead
0:15:36 us to their conclusion rather than the
0:15:37 theistic one
0:15:38 that is this billy this being that is
0:15:41 necessary has a will
0:15:43 and is constantly sustaining um that you
0:15:46 can
0:15:47 infer or tie this notion of constant
0:15:49 interaction or care
0:15:51 if you want to use that um although it's
0:15:53 obviously in this case would be used in
0:15:55 a quite a loose term
0:15:56 um yeah see see carla carlos the issue
0:15:59 is this is that
0:16:00 in order to adopt the position of theism
0:16:03 yeah the first first discussion has to
0:16:05 be is there necessary being doesn't
0:16:06 necessarily
0:16:07 have to exist the next question then
0:16:09 becomes
0:16:10 is this necessary being is it does it
0:16:12 have a will yeah does it does it choose
0:16:14 to create did have intentionality
0:16:17 and then we can go and move to a
0:16:18 discussion of does it have
0:16:20 actuality you know does it is this
0:16:23 theistic
0:16:24 god does it have presence within the
0:16:26 universe and within our lives
0:16:28 but i'm just saying is that what
0:16:29 position do you think you are in in
0:16:30 terms of those three
0:16:37 so i call it i don't know if carlos are
0:16:39 you on mute if you can yeah you're sorry
0:16:42 yeah yeah sorry so those three things
0:16:44 there's a necessary being
0:16:45 that's it that's what you said then you
0:16:48 had
0:16:48 a necessary being with a will yeah this
0:16:51 is where we were trying to get to
0:16:53 and then obviously the third uh position
0:16:56 would be
0:16:57 this god intervenes within the universe
0:16:59 now all we're trying to do is get to
0:17:01 from number one to number two at this
0:17:02 moment in time
0:17:05 yeah um to say it has a will um
0:17:08 yeah it wasn't compelled it wasn't
0:17:11 forced to create because if it was
0:17:12 forced
0:17:13 then the universe essay then the
0:17:15 contingent beings would be eternal
0:17:18 so you're saying in that case that if
0:17:21 god
0:17:22 the god that you believe in does exist
0:17:23 that he could
0:17:25 have existed in the way that you
0:17:29 understand him
0:17:29 but chosen not to create our universe
0:17:33 is that what you're saying yeah yeah
0:17:36 could have chosen
0:17:37 created a different universe could not
0:17:39 didn't have to create the universe
0:17:40 because if the cause if the cause is
0:17:42 some kind of mechanistic
0:17:44 deterministic naturalistic thing
0:17:47 uh then i mean how do you explain how
0:17:50 you get the temporal effect
0:17:52 from the eternal cause that's the whole
0:17:54 question
0:17:56 right i see i mean and even if you went
0:17:59 with
0:18:00 some type of quantum fluctuation and
0:18:02 indeterminist
0:18:03 indeterministic thing it still would
0:18:06 have happened even if it happens at a
0:18:07 probability
0:18:09 it still would have happened uh
0:18:11 eternally
0:18:17 how do you explain that change
0:18:20 even in the if it's a if we're looking
0:18:22 at a naturalistic
0:18:24 explanation whether it's deterministic
0:18:27 or
0:18:28 indeterministic i still don't see how
0:18:31 either one would solve the problem
0:18:33 of an eternal effect cause
0:18:36 producing a temporal effect it doesn't
0:18:39 seem to add up
0:18:41 so so what we observe is
0:18:45 our universe which we agree is temporal
0:18:47 right
0:18:48 yes yeah but we don't
0:18:52 have knowledge of anything outside of
0:18:54 our time
0:18:56 space or anything like that which so we
0:18:59 don't know if
0:19:00 that is temporal or not so what i'm
0:19:02 saying is that
0:19:03 there's potentially other steps that
0:19:05 we're missing out and we're jumping
0:19:07 straight
0:19:08 from um you know an eternal
0:19:12 creator that where nothing else outside
0:19:15 of it exists
0:19:17 do you think it could be do you think it
0:19:20 could be matter
0:19:21 this other thing that we're we're
0:19:23 thinking of
0:19:25 um potentially yeah yeah so you think
0:19:29 you think matter could exist outside of
0:19:32 time and space
0:19:35 not our matter but other matter yeah
0:19:39 i mean but then in that case what is
0:19:41 this i mean we
0:19:43 other matter i don't even know what that
0:19:44 would look like what that even would
0:19:46 mean
0:19:48 define mata what do you mean by mata
0:19:50 exactly
0:19:51 because if you're saying not our matter
0:19:54 and then moving it to this sort of
0:19:55 a temporal substance
0:19:58 what is it that it shares with what
0:20:02 you're referring to is our matter so
0:20:04 that you can still refer to the same
0:20:05 concept or term
0:20:07 so i mean obviously science science
0:20:10 scientists
0:20:11 postulate a possibility of a multiverse
0:20:16 so that would be an example of matter
0:20:18 that exists outside of our time yeah but
0:20:20 even that
0:20:21 that matter that they postulate it's not
0:20:23 some like
0:20:24 radically different concept it's just
0:20:27 the existence of other
0:20:28 you possible universes so
0:20:31 but and that's what i think sharif was
0:20:34 trying to point out in the beginning or
0:20:36 question
0:20:37 how did you get to the place from the
0:20:38 necessary being to begin with
0:20:41 because now when we're dealing with the
0:20:43 second stage
0:20:44 of the cosmological arguments i feel
0:20:46 like we're moving back to
0:20:48 the first stage of how we got there to
0:20:51 begin with
0:20:52 and if you already conceded on that i
0:20:55 don't see how when we make
0:20:56 the secondary points you're moving back
0:21:00 to considering you know
0:21:02 the the sort of preliminary points that
0:21:04 got us here
0:21:06 that's that's the problem i see in this
0:21:08 discussion if i could say something
0:21:10 this thing about matter some different
0:21:12 kind of matter
0:21:13 right i mean first of all i mean that's
0:21:15 that's very vague
0:21:17 so basically you're saying something
0:21:18 right
0:21:21 what is this other kind of matter well
0:21:23 it could be god i'm not saying god is
0:21:24 made out of matter what i'm saying is
0:21:26 you're basically it's very vague to the
0:21:28 extent that it could
0:21:29 basically uh the the what your this
0:21:31 definition you're postulating could
0:21:33 encompass any kind of thing out there so
0:21:36 we
0:21:37 you're in agreement with us that there
0:21:39 is something that is necessary
0:21:40 and you're saying that nature of this
0:21:42 necessary thing as far as its substance
0:21:45 is concerned is a mystery because i mean
0:21:48 saying some other kind of matter is
0:21:50 as good as saying it's something that we
0:21:52 don't know right
0:21:53 uh i mean i don't know how you'd label
0:21:55 it matter if it's
0:21:56 completely unlike what we know as matter
0:21:59 right
0:21:59 so what you would say is that it's
0:22:01 something else that's natural
0:22:03 and then we would ask the same kind of
0:22:05 questions about this
0:22:07 natural thing right that sharif was just
0:22:10 asking and that we've been
0:22:12 asking this whole stream about the
0:22:14 nature of
0:22:15 this what what you call a natural thing
0:22:18 and the causal capacity that it has to
0:22:21 contain to
0:22:22 to create or to cause a contingent world
0:22:27 world will ask the exact same questions
0:22:30 the eternal
0:22:31 cause and the the temporal effect will
0:22:34 ask about the faculty of will and how it
0:22:36 causelessly causes or
0:22:37 just doesn't necessarily mechanistically
0:22:40 or deterministically cause
0:22:42 we'll ask about the nature of the
0:22:43 contingent world and how the property
0:22:45 the properties that we find in the
0:22:47 contingent world are very arbitrary in
0:22:49 the sense that you know
0:22:51 electrons and protons and stuff have
0:22:52 certain charges and everything is very
0:22:55 you know arbitrary arbitrarily limited
0:22:57 in terms of its properties and it's in a
0:22:59 very specific way it's extremely
0:23:01 contingent that it
0:23:02 it's really shouting for some kind of an
0:23:04 explanation so when we say that that's
0:23:06 the nature of the contingent world
0:23:07 and there is a necessary thing that
0:23:09 actualized it
0:23:10 and there is an infinite number of
0:23:12 possibilities that could have been
0:23:13 actualized
0:23:14 we can say that we can infer some aspect
0:23:17 of
0:23:18 of or some faculty of choice there too
0:23:20 so what we're doing is we're agreeing
0:23:22 that there is a cause there is something
0:23:24 necessary
0:23:25 and you're agreeing with us what we are
0:23:27 doing is that we are asking further
0:23:29 questions about this necessary thing
0:23:32 you're saying that there could be other
0:23:33 possibilities that we don't know about
0:23:35 but
0:23:36 you could say to say about everything
0:23:37 you could say the same about scientific
0:23:38 theories like the theory of evolution
0:23:40 it could be possible that there are
0:23:41 other explanations that we don't have
0:23:44 access to right now
0:23:45 but what we're doing is we're working
0:23:46 with what we have and we're making an
0:23:48 inference to the best explanation
0:23:50 in in the weak sense of the argument or
0:23:52 a deductive argument in the stronger
0:23:54 sense
0:23:55 but the the the more compelling aspect
0:23:57 here is is
0:23:58 you know as opposed to scientific
0:24:00 theories and inductive uh
0:24:02 arguments what we're saying is that this
0:24:05 data set that we're working with
0:24:07 couldn't possibly change in the sense
0:24:09 that as far as science can take you
0:24:11 your epistemic standpoint is going to be
0:24:15 the same with regard to the
0:24:16 philosophical questions you ask
0:24:18 about these ultimate explanations of
0:24:21 this contingent world
0:24:22 they're not going to change in that
0:24:23 sense because you're limited by your
0:24:25 observation
0:24:26 so so what we're doing is we're we're
0:24:28 saying that this necessary thing that we
0:24:30 all agree exists
0:24:31 we're saying that we can use the same
0:24:33 reason that we
0:24:34 apply to our you know
0:24:38 inspection of the world in general we
0:24:41 can be consistent in asking similar
0:24:43 questions about it and we can reasonably
0:24:45 come to certain conclusions
0:24:47 even if in the weaker sense it's in uh
0:24:50 or
0:24:51 generally it's it's it's in a within a
0:24:53 fallibilistic
0:24:54 paradigm in the sense that okay we could
0:24:56 be wrong fine
0:24:57 but i mean that's not really news
0:24:59 because we could be wrong about anything
0:25:01 in in a strict epistemic sense right but
0:25:04 are the explanations good are the
0:25:06 arguments good enough to at least
0:25:08 at least say that there is a rational
0:25:12 basis there is a rational foundation for
0:25:14 reality in the sense that this
0:25:15 this the way i'm thinking right now this
0:25:17 line of reasoning i'm giving you
0:25:19 i think you should at least acknowledge
0:25:21 that
0:25:22 i can be reasonable in reaching these
0:25:24 kinds of conclusions from my way of
0:25:26 thinking and from deriving these more
0:25:28 generalized principles from from from
0:25:30 the
0:25:31 the basic epistemology that we use as a
0:25:33 whole so i think that's that's
0:25:35 the broad point here yeah i think it's
0:25:38 i'm not saying yeah
0:25:39 i mean i definitely think it's a
0:25:41 rational
0:25:42 pathway that you're taking i just think
0:25:44 the whole discussion
0:25:46 is just only going to bring us to
0:25:48 approximations it's not
0:25:49 going to even if we think we're using
0:25:53 rational
0:25:54 logic here then it's not necessarily
0:25:56 going to give us
0:25:57 answers that we can be certain about
0:26:00 and you know stop looking for the other
0:26:02 why are you looking for the first
0:26:03 certainty
0:26:04 what what other domain of knowledge do
0:26:06 you uh
0:26:07 look for certainty in like science do we
0:26:10 do we speak with certainty when it comes
0:26:11 to scientific knowledge
0:26:13 no we can't do it okay so that's the
0:26:15 point so so
0:26:16 why are you willing to accept knowledge
0:26:18 in general on a follow unfollow
0:26:20 ballistic grounds but when it comes to
0:26:22 these questions we're asking about
0:26:23 ultimate explanations
0:26:25 you're saying no we have to be 100
0:26:26 certain yeah because
0:26:28 on when we're talking about ontology you
0:26:30 need evidence
0:26:32 from that tier of knowledge
0:26:35 to even be able to have a
0:26:38 rational discussion i mean if we said
0:26:41 like the matrix
0:26:43 was that third domain that yeah
0:26:46 sort of necessary existence the the real
0:26:49 world as it were
0:26:51 if we were like like i don't know if
0:26:53 you've seen the film but if if we were
0:26:55 somehow transported to the real world
0:26:58 from
0:26:58 this world that would we would now be in
0:27:02 the realm of evidence from that tear
0:27:04 but with know we we're locked in
0:27:07 our reality so we do have that
0:27:10 fundamental problem
0:27:12 um yeah but you're right now you're
0:27:14 talking about
0:27:15 you're talking about our bubble of
0:27:16 experience but then we're going to
0:27:18 disagree on what that bubble is
0:27:20 so for example a solipsist would say
0:27:22 that his bubble of experience is only
0:27:23 his first person perspective and
0:27:25 everything you say about the external
0:27:26 world
0:27:27 is just meaningless gibberish right and
0:27:30 then that bubbles and keep expanding
0:27:32 you're going to say someone else is
0:27:33 going to say no it's our immediate
0:27:34 experience and we can't even
0:27:36 make inferences to best explanations
0:27:38 about unobservable things
0:27:39 someone else is telling you he's going
0:27:40 to tell you no no we can make inferences
0:27:42 but let's keep it within the bubble of
0:27:44 our universe
0:27:44 and then we're going to ask questions
0:27:45 but what do we mean by our universe okay
0:27:47 let's talk about the cosmos
0:27:48 and then someone else is going to say
0:27:50 reality but what is reality
0:27:52 so so we're going to disagree on what
0:27:54 really constitutes this bubble of
0:27:55 experience we're talking about and
0:27:57 what i would say is that there's really
0:27:58 no difference you're just always making
0:28:00 claims about reality as a whole
0:28:03 and you do make inferences from the
0:28:05 observable to the unobservable all the
0:28:06 time
0:28:07 so i i don't know why there isn't a very
0:28:10 s like why is there this exception when
0:28:13 it comes
0:28:14 to the ultimate grounding of reality
0:28:17 um because you know when we're talking
0:28:20 about epistemology
0:28:21 we're either locked in our imagination
0:28:24 and we can come up with all sorts of
0:28:27 explanations for reality and the true
0:28:29 nature of reality
0:28:31 um we can then go to the second tier and
0:28:34 use epistemology we can use empirical
0:28:36 data to um back up
0:28:40 what our original thoughts were in the
0:28:41 first tier but then
0:28:43 when we go and trying to get to this
0:28:44 third tier of knowledge
0:28:46 ontology it you're always working from a
0:28:49 bottom-up
0:28:50 perspective you're always trying but
0:28:53 carlos you already agreed
0:28:54 you we this is why at the beginning we
0:28:57 did we mentioned certain points
0:28:58 you already agree you've already gone
0:29:00 from contingent realities to a necessary
0:29:02 reality so we're already talking about
0:29:04 something
0:29:05 that's outside of quote-unquote the
0:29:07 empirical realm yeah what we can
0:29:09 experience
0:29:10 so we've already agreed me and you
0:29:11 agreed upon that you know this is what
0:29:13 we agreed upon
0:29:14 yeah i mean i was going to ask you that
0:29:15 question because yeah because you
0:29:17 arrived at something necessary
0:29:19 through non supposedly non-empirical
0:29:21 means so you agree with sharif on that
0:29:24 yeah yeah but i did start off by saying
0:29:27 that it's just an approximation
0:29:29 um just because of our um you know
0:29:32 just limitations on an epistemological
0:29:34 level
0:29:35 so even though i accept it
0:29:39 it makes complete rational sense and i'm
0:29:41 happy to
0:29:42 go with that it is just an approximation
0:29:44 and i'm still open to revision
0:29:46 um okay right i mean just bringing it
0:29:49 back to the will
0:29:51 question i mean if we said that um
0:29:54 the necessary existence or necessary
0:29:57 being
0:29:58 isn't conscious it's some form of
0:30:00 naturalistic pantheo
0:30:02 pantheism would you and in that scenario
0:30:06 the the fact that contingent things that
0:30:09 exist came about
0:30:11 randomly for argument's sake so it could
0:30:14 or could not have come about
0:30:15 do you still class that as a will
0:30:18 in the same way that you've been talking
0:30:21 no because naturalistic
0:30:22 isn't it i mean even like we explain oh
0:30:26 i was trying to explain earlier about
0:30:28 the if it's a naturalistic
0:30:30 explanation that's indeterministic you
0:30:33 still have the same problem of
0:30:34 explaining
0:30:35 how you get the temporal effect from the
0:30:38 eternal cause
0:30:41 i mean you still i don't see how
0:30:43 indeterminism would solve that problem
0:30:46 from a naturalistic perspective because
0:30:49 even if it's indeterministic in the
0:30:51 sense that it happens
0:30:53 uh with a probability it still is
0:30:56 inevitable
0:30:57 to happen nonetheless in that sense
0:31:00 one of those probabilities is going to
0:31:02 happen
0:31:04 so how do you determine that god isn't
0:31:06 deterministic in the same way
0:31:09 well because god has a will whereas
0:31:11 nature doesn't
0:31:13 or at least how are you determining that
0:31:16 what's that because because contingent
0:31:18 beings began to exist
0:31:20 it it if we accept that if x
0:31:23 causes y and x exists y exists if x is
0:31:26 eternal then y would be eternal
0:31:29 yeah if x exists that causes y
0:31:32 but x exists but y doesn't exist
0:31:36 then it means that x was not compelled
0:31:38 to cause y
0:31:41 all right is that is that your
0:31:42 justification for saying that necessary
0:31:44 existence has has
0:31:46 a consciousness yeah that's one of the
0:31:49 explanations one of the
0:31:50 one of the uh evidences that we're using
0:31:53 here
0:31:54 we're using four different evidences
0:31:57 yeah but one of those
0:31:58 evidences all i'm doing carlos is using
0:32:01 your premises to your arguments that
0:32:04 you've come to the conclusion of a
0:32:06 necessary being
0:32:07 yeah i've not gone outside of that and
0:32:09 i'm saying based on those
0:32:11 arguments that you already hold on to
0:32:13 whether it's
0:32:14 you know good explanation rational
0:32:17 expert whatever it is
0:32:18 the logical entailment of that would
0:32:20 come to the conclusion
0:32:22 that the necessary being was not forced
0:32:25 or compelled to create by some
0:32:28 mechanistic
0:32:29 force yeah because if it did
0:32:33 then the universe and contingent beings
0:32:35 would be
0:32:36 infinite or eternal and therefore
0:32:38 there'd be an
0:32:39 infinite regression or an infinite sum
0:32:41 of
0:32:42 events yeah what whatever you know what
0:32:44 if what i find very interesting
0:32:46 uh sharif and and and carlos is that
0:32:49 this this fact that atheists normally uh
0:32:52 um
0:32:53 object to it the the real sticking point
0:32:55 is whether this necessary foundation has
0:32:57 a consciousness or a will right this is
0:33:00 this is really the main point
0:33:02 what's really interesting about this is
0:33:03 that even within our own experience
0:33:06 we can't directly observe these things
0:33:07 and we make inferences about them all
0:33:09 the time
0:33:10 it's it's it's our inner most human
0:33:13 experience
0:33:14 this first person perspective thing we
0:33:16 call consciousness
0:33:18 yet we cannot uh directly observe it
0:33:22 so so for the atheists to say that i'm
0:33:25 waiting for
0:33:26 empirical evidence to justify the claim
0:33:29 that this necessary foundation
0:33:31 is conscious and i can't make an
0:33:33 inference about it
0:33:34 it's it's it's kind it's kind of funny
0:33:36 because then we come back here to our
0:33:38 reality and your very immediate
0:33:40 experience
0:33:41 you couldn't possibly reduce and
0:33:44 deconstruct this phenomenon of
0:33:46 consciousness
0:33:47 and show me how it works yet when i make
0:33:51 a similar inference about the necessary
0:33:54 foundation of reality and give you
0:33:56 similar reasons in the way i infer its
0:33:59 will and its consciousness to the way we
0:34:01 always do infer wills and consciousness
0:34:04 about beings around us somehow there's a
0:34:06 problem
0:34:07 why because i can't see it well you
0:34:09 already already agree it exists
0:34:11 so forget about like the substance of it
0:34:13 or how it works or any of that because
0:34:15 we aren't making any specific claims
0:34:17 about that
0:34:18 we're saying that something exists and
0:34:20 in the same way i infer
0:34:21 a will and a consciousness with regard
0:34:24 to you
0:34:25 i do the same with regard to this
0:34:26 necessary foundation there's literally
0:34:28 no difference
0:34:29 and nothing about me observing this
0:34:32 necessary foundation
0:34:34 will change anything about that
0:34:35 inference because we know there are
0:34:37 serious discussions right now among
0:34:39 scientists and philosophers about pan
0:34:40 psychism
0:34:41 they're trying to tell you that
0:34:42 everything around you is conscious so
0:34:44 the whole
0:34:45 topic of what constitutes consciousness
0:34:47 isn't exactly that straightforward
0:34:49 anyway and you have to sort of
0:34:50 philosophize about it
0:34:52 so if we make a con consistent inference
0:34:54 from our immediate experience about the
0:34:56 way consciousness
0:34:57 and free will works and the way
0:34:59 intentionality works
0:35:00 to this necessary foundation without
0:35:02 necessarily
0:35:04 having to you know examine it directly
0:35:08 we're not really doing anything
0:35:10 different than what we do within our you
0:35:12 know
0:35:12 immediate experience and day-to-day
0:35:14 lives even at a very sophisticated
0:35:16 philosophical and scientific level
0:35:18 yeah to talk about examining it um sort
0:35:21 of i guess
0:35:21 misunderstands what consciousness is
0:35:23 exactly um
0:35:25 because again like as you were saying
0:35:26 there how do we
0:35:28 examine consciousness necessarily even
0:35:30 when we're talking about ourselves this
0:35:31 is a
0:35:32 proper pickle subject it was only the
0:35:34 other day i was watching
0:35:35 um quantum biology or quantum physics in
0:35:39 biology like a stream
0:35:41 um and they the second they get onto the
0:35:43 topic of consciousness on the
0:35:45 on to the the topic of um of life
0:35:49 they they start alluding to these funny
0:35:51 words like oh you know it's like magic
0:35:53 to us oh it's
0:35:54 uh let's not go there or you know they
0:35:56 they make references to these
0:35:58 um these issues when it comes to to
0:36:00 talking about what consciousness
0:36:02 is exactly um and so
0:36:06 like i i don't know how we would expect
0:36:09 to apply this method if it doesn't even
0:36:11 apply very well here when we're talking
0:36:13 about us
0:36:14 yeah we all have this intuitive
0:36:16 intuitive understanding of what
0:36:17 consciousness is
0:36:18 um or intentionality like how
0:36:22 um we engage with things i guess and
0:36:26 trying to then yeah so so i was going to
0:36:30 ask carla
0:36:30 how how do you how would you normally
0:36:34 infer somebody's has intentionality
0:36:38 because maybe that's what will help
0:36:39 explain what through their actions
0:36:41 if we can try and wrap up as well
0:36:43 because um we're moving on to 20 minutes
0:36:45 now we've got
0:36:46 a few three more guests we want to try
0:36:48 and get on as well yeah sure
0:36:50 so what yourself what yo rahman
0:36:53 mentioned is he said that look
0:36:55 it's not just through their actions is
0:36:57 it for example
0:36:58 if you know you've got that uh test
0:37:00 where you put the hammer to the knee
0:37:02 and your knee you know automatically
0:37:05 shoots up
0:37:06 it's a reflex test that the doctors do
0:37:08 to check your reflexes
0:37:10 you're just looking at me like confused
0:37:12 and he's thinking what's he talking
0:37:13 about
0:37:14 no i was reading the comments i wasn't
0:37:15 all right you know you know the test
0:37:17 though don't you
0:37:18 yeah say it again so you know the little
0:37:21 little
0:37:22 hammer that the doctor does when he taps
0:37:23 your knee and your knee moves
0:37:26 i was doing it with my daughter the
0:37:27 other day but she goes in with a hammer
0:37:29 like an absolute maniac
0:37:34 so carlos are it's not just action is it
0:37:38 it's more than just action it's the fact
0:37:40 that the action that the person performs
0:37:43 or the the qualco object performs has no
0:37:47 naturalistic explanation there's nothing
0:37:49 external to it
0:37:50 like the forces of nature that can
0:37:52 explain why perform the action
0:37:55 does that is that would that be correct
0:37:57 to say
0:37:58 that's how we understand intentionality
0:38:02 okay i thought could work with that yeah
0:38:04 so for example if somebody if i start
0:38:06 hearing the knock on this door
0:38:08 then i know that the door's not causing
0:38:10 the knocking i know that
0:38:12 the the explanation is not contained
0:38:15 within a naturalistic framework there
0:38:17 must be somebody causing the knocking
0:38:19 behind the door
0:38:20 yeah i know the door has not always been
0:38:22 knocking if the door has
0:38:24 always been knocking i'd be thinking
0:38:25 there's something wrong with the door
0:38:27 that's why it's always making this sound
0:38:29 yeah the fact that it sometimes knocks
0:38:31 and sometimes doesn't knock
0:38:33 indicates to me some sort of
0:38:34 intentionality particularly if i cannot
0:38:37 explain it
0:38:37 within a physicalist or materialistic
0:38:40 paradigm
0:38:41 yeah so somebody knocks on that door
0:38:44 that knocking therefore for me allows me
0:38:47 to understand intentionality
0:38:49 yeah i can understand intentionality
0:38:51 there's a temporal event
0:38:52 there is something which cannot be
0:38:54 explained by the physical contingent
0:38:56 beings
0:38:57 therefore there must be something other
0:38:59 than the physical contingent beings
0:39:01 that cause the knocking the only
0:39:02 explanation we have is something called
0:39:04 intentionality
0:39:06 that's how we understand human beings
0:39:07 are intentional and have will and
0:39:09 consciousness
0:39:10 yeah now what what ontology
0:39:14 that person who's causing the knocking
0:39:17 on the door
0:39:18 what color eyes that person has how tall
0:39:20 that person is a woman
0:39:22 i can't con i can't come to that
0:39:24 conclusion
0:39:25 just from the knocking yeah but i can
0:39:28 come to the conclusion that something
0:39:29 exists
0:39:30 something's causing the knocking and it
0:39:32 has intentionality
0:39:34 yeah and that's all we're doing when it
0:39:36 comes to the observation
0:39:38 of the universe we're looking at the
0:39:40 implication of the observed event
0:39:43 we're saying we're seeing contingent
0:39:44 beings contingent beings are not
0:39:47 eternal they don't always exist they
0:39:49 don't have to exist
0:39:50 they need an explanation outside of
0:39:52 itself the explanation is a necessary
0:39:54 being
0:39:55 and the necessary being does not have
0:39:56 any explanation outside of itself it's
0:39:59 independent completely independent
0:40:02 and it causes things
0:40:05 which don't have to exist and are
0:40:08 temporal they began to exist
0:40:10 so we're seeing the same thing we're
0:40:11 seeing intentionality
0:40:13 like the knocking on the door now other
0:40:15 properties
0:40:16 about this necessary being you know
0:40:19 uh whether you want to say it's a good
0:40:21 god all these types of
0:40:23 these are separate discussions that we
0:40:24 can have but the very least now we've
0:40:26 come to a conclusion that a
0:40:27 necessary being had intentionality had
0:40:30 will
0:40:32 yeah no i think you made some good
0:40:33 points as the the
0:40:36 one that jake uh mentioned about the
0:40:39 move from maternal to temporal um
0:40:42 that link that's something i hadn't
0:40:45 thought about before and i will go away
0:40:47 and ponder that um
0:40:54 um some time and maybe come back with
0:40:57 some forms but i think
0:40:58 i think it's a good point to make and uh
0:41:01 it's something that
0:41:02 um and there's an atheist i need to
0:41:04 think about because i do
0:41:06 i do i've always as far as i've
0:41:10 um investigated in terms of this subject
0:41:14 when i look at the different
0:41:15 possibilities
0:41:17 to explain the necessary existence
0:41:20 because there are other possibilities
0:41:22 out there i think we obviously have to
0:41:23 be able to rule the other ones out
0:41:25 or show which one is is why why one is
0:41:28 superior
0:41:29 um and the way i've always looked at it
0:41:30 before is probably from like an occam's
0:41:33 razor point of view whereas
0:41:35 the one with the least baggage is the
0:41:38 one that
0:41:38 makes the most sense and and obviously
0:41:40 when we do that you know
0:41:42 naturalistic pantheism or some sort of
0:41:44 pantheism is to be preferred
0:41:46 on i have to stop you there
0:41:49 that's got more baggage and it's more
0:41:52 complex
0:41:53 than a necessary being with a will well
0:41:55 let's save that for the next stream
0:42:02 beings don't mean that it's just
0:42:03 literally simple it means it doesn't
0:42:06 have
0:42:06 more complex explanations more
0:42:09 metaphysical baggage to it
0:42:11 and when you start depositing an
0:42:13 infinite number of universes
0:42:15 that's no longer simple or when you
0:42:17 posit a materialistic
0:42:18 naturalistic pantheism that didn't have
0:42:21 a will but needs to
0:42:22 but doesn't have the explanatory power
0:42:24 to explain why temporal
0:42:26 events and temporal continued beings
0:42:28 began to exist even though this is
0:42:29 eternal
0:42:30 it's not it's not a simple explanation
0:42:34 so the only the simplest using outcomes
0:42:36 rates the simplest explanation
0:42:38 would be a necessary being with the will
0:42:40 i know you're supposed to stop me though
0:42:41 yeah because this is an interesting
0:42:44 conversation but i know i know it's
0:42:45 going to open up a whole another 10
0:42:47 hours
0:42:48 of talking so we just need to cut it
0:42:50 next we've got another
0:42:51 three people on uh that we want to kind
0:42:53 of get on quickly insha'allah
0:42:55 but no problem appreciate you coming on
0:42:57 as always carlos it's been a pleasure
0:42:59 talking to you
0:43:00 and uh inshallah we'll see you again on
0:43:02 a future episode
0:43:04 yeah i'll be back all right we'll
0:43:06 further this conversation
0:43:07 take care thanks now bye bye