Appeal to Mystery = Appeal to Contradictions? | TAP #24 (2022-10-23) ​

0:00:09 I'm here
0:00:31 too
0:00:36 for joining us I think there's maybe a
0:00:38 slight confusion because we had a uh we
0:00:40 had the comment pinned up saying uh you
0:00:43 know from last week and we couldn't do
0:00:45 the show so I'm a little worried that
0:00:47 everybody's gonna think we're still not
0:00:49 doing the show today but
0:00:51 for the brothers who are joining us and
0:00:55 yes man We've Got Jake
0:00:57 how's things
0:01:02 how's everything I'm the good man you've
0:01:05 uh you broke from the tradition no red
0:01:09 yeah man it's uh it's football season so
0:01:12 I'm wearing my jet stuff all right come
0:01:15 to that how's things been anyway because
0:01:17 we've constantly getting messages
0:01:19 where's Jake where's Jake how's
0:01:21 everything spinning yeah I've been good
0:01:23 Camden I've just been busy but uh
0:01:26 everything's good 100 now I'm doing
0:01:28 that's good we've also got abdulrahman
0:01:30 here uh on the show but uh I think he's
0:01:33 busy as well uh uh yusuf's actually in
0:01:37 uh turkey is with the sapience Institute
0:01:40 Retreat program that they're running
0:01:42 there at the moment
0:01:43 so I mean for the audience if you've
0:01:46 noticed there's not been as many streams
0:01:48 like hamza's den you're meant to be on
0:01:51 hamza's Den weren't you this Friday oh
0:01:52 last Friday gone
0:01:54 uh yeah but yeah I think he um he had to
0:01:58 cancel yeah because he's at the retreat
0:02:01 as well I texted him and said I thought
0:02:03 you guys were on today and he was like
0:02:04 uh no he's at the retreat so I think
0:02:06 there's a lot of brothers that are out
0:02:08 that Retreat who don't live in uh live
0:02:09 streams and so it's probably been in the
0:02:12 last uh uh you know a couple of weeks or
0:02:15 whatever is a week or so I got a few
0:02:17 streams that have not been on but we're
0:02:19 on that's the main thing and today's
0:02:21 topic that we're going to be discussing
0:02:23 about is about the appeal to mystery
0:02:27 now why do we talk about this particular
0:02:29 topic uh well number of things really
0:02:34 one a lot of people I sense don't
0:02:37 understand the difference between
0:02:38 appealing to mystery and trying to under
0:02:43 the necessity or the need to explain a
0:02:45 logical contradiction they conflate
0:02:47 these two things together so they
0:02:49 basically see that some things are is an
0:02:51 apparent logical contradiction and
0:02:53 they'll just jump to appealing to a
0:02:54 mystery yeah or maybe go into more
0:02:57 explanation in terms of what we mean by
0:02:58 this uh or on the other hand sometimes
0:03:02 when when people appeal to mystery it's
0:03:05 assumed that they're appealing to
0:03:08 something that's a contradiction when
0:03:10 it's not a contradiction if you
0:03:12 understand what we're saying uh
0:03:13 hopefully that's clear but we'll explain
0:03:15 it further so it's really important uh
0:03:17 and maybe um maybe just to give very
0:03:19 brief example isn't it some people like
0:03:21 for example Christians they will talk
0:03:23 about The Logical problem of Trinity and
0:03:26 one of the responses that some
0:03:28 Christians will have is to say well it's
0:03:30 a mystery it's you know we quite
0:03:32 understand it we can't understand the
0:03:34 nature of God therefore you know we're
0:03:37 warranted and justified in believing
0:03:39 something that might not necessarily
0:03:41 make sense because it's a mystery yeah
0:03:44 so that's the topic uh today uh Jake I
0:03:48 don't know if you've got any particular
0:03:49 I know I've got specific questions but
0:03:51 any general thoughts about this as an
0:03:53 introduction to help the audience
0:03:54 understand this particular topic and why
0:03:56 it's important
0:03:59 um not really other than um
0:04:02 yeah I mean just sort of repeating the
0:04:05 points you already made which are we
0:04:07 want to make a distinction between what
0:04:10 a mystery is and what a contradiction is
0:04:12 uh people need to understand the
0:04:14 difference between the two and when it
0:04:17 may be able to when it may be
0:04:19 appropriate to appeal to mystery quote
0:04:22 unquote and when it's not uh those are
0:04:24 the things that we want to look at
0:04:28 so let's go to the first question then
0:04:31 anyway because uh some of these
0:04:33 questions we've actually addressed in
0:04:34 other streams but I do think it's
0:04:36 important to
0:04:37 lay the foundation so we can understand
0:04:40 this and by the way for the audience as
0:04:41 well you will have opportunities uh to
0:04:44 come on the show so we will send out the
0:04:46 link uh later on inshallah but in terms
0:04:49 of the first question then Jake is uh
0:04:52 how do we Define these things called
0:04:54 logical contradiction how how do how do
0:04:56 we understand a logical contradiction
0:04:59 yeah so a logical contradiction in terms
0:05:03 of like um
0:05:04 formal logical contradiction is just the
0:05:07 affirmation of p and not P right
0:05:12 um or you can say a and not a
0:05:14 now if I were to give some examples of
0:05:16 that that would be like me saying that
0:05:19 there exists a married Bachelor well
0:05:22 that's a contradiction that's a logical
0:05:25 contradiction because the very meaning
0:05:27 of a bachelor is someone who's unmarried
0:05:31 so to say that there's an unmarried
0:05:33 married man is a contradiction doesn't
0:05:36 it doesn't make any sense because you're
0:05:38 affirming a and not a
0:05:41 likewise you can say the same thing of
0:05:44 things like a square circle
0:05:47 um you know a square triangle uh
0:05:50 numerous examples like that I'm just
0:05:52 trying to keep it basic so people
0:05:54 understand what a logical contradiction
0:05:56 is obviously we're going to go into a
0:05:59 bit more detail about
0:06:01 um maybe some examples of what isn't a
0:06:04 logical contradiction
0:06:06 um but just briefly I'll mention that
0:06:11 um
0:06:12 so there may be things that we don't
0:06:14 fully understand right like
0:06:17 um you cannot uh fully comprehend even
0:06:21 how your car works right at least I
0:06:24 don't anyway because I'm not very handy
0:06:25 but there's no contradiction because
0:06:27 when I get into when I get in it I start
0:06:30 it up and it starts moving even if I
0:06:31 don't know uh and fully comprehend all
0:06:34 the ways in which the parts of it are
0:06:36 operating and how it's running and how
0:06:38 it works right so that's there's no
0:06:40 contradiction with that a contradiction
0:06:43 like I said again to repeat is affirming
0:06:46 a and not a or affirming p and not p
0:06:50 in which case
0:06:52 um you have two opposites which are
0:06:54 being brought together and I gave some
0:06:57 examples like the square circle or
0:06:59 married Bachelor so I hope that's clear
0:07:01 enough I don't want to give too many
0:07:02 examples to complicate things yeah yeah
0:07:05 so I think the way I look at a logical
0:07:07 contradiction as a sort of the Bare
0:07:10 Bones of it is the proposition or the
0:07:12 statement or the particular beliefs that
0:07:14 are being appealed to
0:07:16 do not make uh they don't have a they
0:07:19 don't carry a meaning a semantical
0:07:21 meaning
0:07:23 um I don't know if you've got any
0:07:24 thoughts about that Jake but in terms of
0:07:27 because sometimes I can understand a
0:07:30 sentence but when I try to bring that
0:07:33 sentence to something that's meaningful
0:07:35 it doesn't have an actual meaning
0:07:38 would that be correct to understand it
0:07:40 that way
0:07:41 yeah I think like for example with
0:07:44 married Bachelor you can understand the
0:07:47 phrase and you can understand the
0:07:49 meaning of both words right but you
0:07:52 can't understand what that would mean
0:07:54 for the two to coexist together right
0:07:58 um what would that look like it's very
0:08:02 it's very strange so in that sense you
0:08:05 can understand the words and the meaning
0:08:08 of certain words
0:08:10 in a uh what's being expressed as a
0:08:13 formal contradiction and part of the
0:08:15 reason why and this is actually
0:08:17 something important part of the reason
0:08:19 why
0:08:20 um you know it's a contradiction is
0:08:23 because of the fact that you can
0:08:24 understand the meaning of the words that
0:08:27 are being represented however when
0:08:29 they're brought together then yeah of
0:08:31 course it has no meaning it's just uh
0:08:34 gobbledygook it's just like you know
0:08:36 just talking nonsense so um but I think
0:08:39 that is important because
0:08:41 something that's going to come up later
0:08:43 in order to demonstrate that something
0:08:46 is actually a contradiction
0:08:48 the two opposites that are being brought
0:08:50 together need to be clearly defined and
0:08:52 established in order to understand that
0:08:55 it's a contradiction right yeah so um
0:08:58 but yeah as to as for the meaning of the
0:09:00 contradiction itself and how they're
0:09:02 being brought together simultaneously no
0:09:05 that's just nonsense and so when we talk
0:09:08 about for instance
0:09:10 Uh something's a logical contradiction
0:09:13 when that's made as a claim now uh from
0:09:17 my understanding there's a burden of
0:09:19 proof
0:09:20 now both ways isn't there so for example
0:09:22 when when somebody's this particular
0:09:25 belief system is a logical contradiction
0:09:29 he has to prove that is that correct
0:09:33 yeah so I mean if somebody is saying
0:09:36 that let's say x is a contradiction
0:09:39 then he has to show what the A and not a
0:09:42 actually is just like I said a married
0:09:45 Bachelor is a contradiction I gave a
0:09:48 brief explanation why uh so somebody
0:09:51 who's claiming that something is a
0:09:52 contradiction especially in a debate or
0:09:55 discussion needs to establish what the A
0:09:59 and not a is and demonstrate that the
0:10:02 person is actually affirming those two
0:10:05 uh contrary things rather than just
0:10:08 asserting it and straw Manning or
0:10:09 misrepresenting the person when they're
0:10:11 not actually
0:10:13 um when they're not actually affirming
0:10:14 those two
0:10:16 um
0:10:16 opposites yeah yeah Patel just uh put a
0:10:21 comment on which I thought it might be a
0:10:22 good uh question to answer are logical
0:10:25 fallacies considered contradictions
0:10:30 now so a fallacy is not necessarily a
0:10:34 contradiction
0:10:36 um certainly not like um
0:10:39 you can have
0:10:40 what's an example like I mean you have
0:10:44 formal fallacies and you have informal
0:10:46 uh logical fallacies and no they're not
0:10:49 necessarily contradictions like for
0:10:51 example an appeal to Authority when it's
0:10:54 not justified right there's no
0:10:57 contradiction in it it's just that
0:10:59 you're not justified in appealing to
0:11:01 this authority to make a particular
0:11:03 argument there's no contradiction in
0:11:06 doing it
0:11:07 um you can you can do this with many
0:11:09 different examples like um
0:11:12 I don't know I don't want to give too
0:11:13 many logical fallacies and then people
0:11:15 get confused but but no
0:11:18 um logical fallacies uh have to do with
0:11:21 an improper way of reasoning but it
0:11:24 doesn't mean that it is necessarily
0:11:27 contradictory yeah so in essence I think
0:11:30 it's like saying that the conclusion is
0:11:32 not justified from the syllogism
0:11:35 the links between the premises so you
0:11:38 come to a particular conclusion based
0:11:40 upon some sort of premises to an
0:11:42 argument and they don't justify it uh in
0:11:45 in that sense that's probably and
0:11:46 they're probably different forms of
0:11:47 logical or different forms of fallacies
0:11:50 yeah I mean you have like affirming the
0:11:52 consequent fallacy right so you say
0:11:55 something like well if P then Q
0:11:58 Q therefore P right this is this is a
0:12:03 logical fallacy
0:12:04 um but the the idea that it's contrary
0:12:08 it's not contradictory right it's just
0:12:10 an improper inference that's being made
0:12:13 so uh it should be if P then q p
0:12:17 therefore Q right but you can't go from
0:12:20 uh if P then q q therefore P doesn't
0:12:24 work that way
0:12:26 um so that's that's the fallacy of of
0:12:28 affirming the consequence because you're
0:12:30 affirming the the second half of the
0:12:32 conditional statement
0:12:34 um when in order for it to be a proper
0:12:36 inference you'd have to either affirm uh
0:12:40 p in the second premise therefore Q or
0:12:43 uh not Q therefore not P
0:12:47 um so
0:12:49 yeah but anyway I don't want to get like
0:12:51 I said I don't want to get too
0:12:52 complicated but that's that's a a
0:12:54 fallacy and reasoning but it's not a
0:12:57 contradiction somebody's just making an
0:12:59 error making a mistake in terms of the
0:13:01 inference that they're making so so I
0:13:03 think just just before you mentioned
0:13:05 that point about the question that was
0:13:06 given by Yahoo for that but the issue
0:13:10 was oh the question that I asked
0:13:12 specifically is what is the person under
0:13:14 an obligation to demonstrate a logical
0:13:16 contradiction I think you said yes they
0:13:18 are under if they're if if they're
0:13:21 claiming that your belief system is a
0:13:23 contradiction a logical contradiction
0:13:25 they're now obliged to show it yeah it's
0:13:29 not the case you know maybe it's just
0:13:30 obvious in certain situations but where
0:13:34 it requires a bit of elaboration they
0:13:35 have to show it and then if they show it
0:13:39 then the person who is now obligated to
0:13:42 respond is not the case if somebody
0:13:44 turns around and says okay yeah your
0:13:46 belief is a contradiction here's the
0:13:48 reason why he spells it out the person
0:13:50 understands what he's saying he now has
0:13:53 to respond to that yeah he car appealed
0:13:55 to mystery in that situation can he well
0:13:57 he could do but
0:13:59 he's just accepting that there's a
0:14:02 contradiction that cannot be answered
0:14:05 yeah so uh I mean obviously we'll go
0:14:08 into examples later on but um
0:14:12 but yeah if he's present if the person
0:14:14 is claiming that there's a contradiction
0:14:16 the burden of proof is on him to
0:14:19 establish it otherwise he can just say
0:14:21 it and I say well I don't see what the
0:14:23 contradiction is well there's going to
0:14:25 be a point where he's got to present and
0:14:27 demonstrate what the A and not a or the
0:14:30 contradiction is otherwise I mean have a
0:14:33 nice day what can we say but when he
0:14:35 does present it
0:14:36 um then obviously if the person is is
0:14:39 concerned with truth and wants to be
0:14:41 consistent uh he'll respond by trying to
0:14:45 show at minimum how it's not
0:14:47 contradictory even if he doesn't fully
0:14:49 understand uh both Concepts involved so
0:14:53 um so yeah that's kind of how how the
0:14:55 dialectic would work person who makes
0:14:57 the claim of contradiction burden is on
0:15:00 him to demonstrate it and then the
0:15:02 person who is supposedly affirming those
0:15:04 two contradictory beliefs
0:15:06 um if he's concerned with consistency
0:15:09 he's going to attempt to respond to show
0:15:11 how not an actual contradiction yeah and
0:15:14 I think the reason why as I've asked
0:15:16 this question and we want to answer is
0:15:18 because
0:15:19 when people watch debates and
0:15:21 discussions that take place whether it's
0:15:23 between Muslims or Muslims and
0:15:24 non-muslims or even between non-muslims
0:15:26 themselves
0:15:27 you've got as an audience you've got to
0:15:30 be armed with some clear understandings
0:15:32 about how an a proper argument is
0:15:35 formulated just by claiming something's
0:15:38 a contradiction is not sufficient you
0:15:40 have to demonstrate it once you claim it
0:15:42 because you're now under burden of proof
0:15:44 in the same way once been claimed and
0:15:47 demonstrated then the other person now
0:15:49 is under a burden of proof to now
0:15:51 demonstrate how their belief system or
0:15:54 proposition whatever it is they hold
0:15:55 doesn't have a burden or doesn't fall
0:15:58 under a logical contradiction he has to
0:16:00 give some sort of explanation regards to
0:16:02 this so you know people need to be aware
0:16:04 of this because otherwise uh discussions
0:16:07 go nowhere and even if people are
0:16:10 engaging these types of discussions they
0:16:11 need to be aware of how to properly
0:16:13 engage in a intellectual discourse
0:16:16 abdulrahman assalamu alaikum
0:16:20 foreign
0:16:36 contradiction and then we talked a bit
0:16:39 about that uh so the other question that
0:16:41 I want to ask to lay the foundations of
0:16:43 this topic is does appealing to mystery
0:16:47 undermine rational justification for a
0:16:50 belief
0:16:52 so maybe you can talk about very briefly
0:16:54 what is it means when is it is it fine
0:16:57 to appeal to mystery and if you do does
0:17:01 that mean that therefore you're not
0:17:02 justified rationally holding the beliefs
0:17:04 that you hold because there's things
0:17:06 that you don't know
0:17:08 yeah well so I don't think
0:17:11 um like there's a there's a yes no
0:17:14 answer to that question so it depends in
0:17:16 what way you're appealing to mystery
0:17:19 um like for example you can say that um
0:17:23 the mystery you're appealing to might be
0:17:26 um incomplete information for example if
0:17:29 you say that there are attributes that
0:17:31 God has that we don't know of
0:17:35 um that's that's not the kind of appeal
0:17:38 to mystery that would be necessarily
0:17:40 problematic right
0:17:42 uh if you have an incomplete picture of
0:17:44 things where you shouldn't necessarily
0:17:47 expect yourself rationally to have a
0:17:49 complete picture it's not really the
0:17:51 kind of appeal to mystery that's that's
0:17:53 problematic but uh as I think you guys
0:17:56 were talking I was kind of listening in
0:17:57 in the case of contradictions
0:18:00 then it's it's a lot more serious right
0:18:03 because if there is an apparent
0:18:04 contradiction and uh um you appeal to
0:18:08 mystery then you want to make sure that
0:18:10 you're doing that in the right way so
0:18:12 you want to make sure that it is
0:18:13 actually an apparent contradiction in
0:18:15 that your appeal to mystery is somehow
0:18:17 uh
0:18:18 um Justified
0:18:20 uh and that that that's gonna come in
0:18:23 different forms uh
0:18:25 like um
0:18:27 so in in our everyday language right in
0:18:30 everyday communication I can hear
0:18:32 somebody say something that
0:18:34 appears to be contradictory right so I
0:18:36 can hear Sharif saying something that
0:18:38 appears to be contradictory but at the
0:18:42 same time I can appeal to mystery in the
0:18:44 sense that I know he's not really
0:18:46 contradicting himself he means something
0:18:47 else by that I mean so that that's
0:18:50 that's okay right uh but then when
0:18:54 you're specifically talking about
0:18:55 something that is at the core of
0:18:59 um let's say a theory that you hold to
0:19:00 or a belief system and something that is
0:19:03 Central to it
0:19:05 then you really want to avoid that then
0:19:07 that's this it gets more and more
0:19:09 serious so if the foundation if it
0:19:12 involves the foundations of your belief
0:19:14 or uh something upon which the truth or
0:19:18 falsehood of the belief is going to be
0:19:20 assessed and or determined
0:19:22 uh then in this case really your appeal
0:19:26 to mystery is definitely going to be
0:19:28 regarded as a cost uh for your theory
0:19:32 okay so uh what about then when we talk
0:19:36 about
0:19:37 uh knowing the exact nature of God
0:19:39 because
0:19:41 or theists well most years I'd assume
0:19:44 actually would appeal to some sort of
0:19:46 mystery about the the true nature of the
0:19:49 creator
0:19:52 yeah definitely so I mean there are
0:19:54 plenty of things about God uh that we
0:19:57 don't know that we don't fully
0:20:00 understand I mean the the list really is
0:20:03 is quite vast of what we don't know or
0:20:06 fully understand about God but that
0:20:08 doesn't mean that God is is
0:20:09 contradictory any more than there are
0:20:12 plenty of things that I don't know about
0:20:14 how my car works right
0:20:17 um and not to try to analogize a car
0:20:20 with god
0:20:21 um but I'm saying Even in our common
0:20:23 experiences
0:20:25 pointed out there's plenty of things we
0:20:27 don't fully grasp
0:20:29 um we don't even fully understand our
0:20:31 own selves probably but that doesn't
0:20:34 mean that there's there's some
0:20:35 contradiction involved
0:20:37 um so God for example
0:20:40 um can we fully comprehend how God can
0:20:45 know everything simultaneously with
0:20:48 everything that's happening in the world
0:20:49 well that's very difficult to imagine
0:20:52 right but we know the meaning of
0:20:55 omniscience we know what it means for
0:20:57 God to be omniscient it is for him to be
0:21:00 have knowledge of
0:21:02 um every you know everything that's
0:21:04 going on in the world but we can't
0:21:06 conceptualize it or fully grasp it
0:21:08 because we are such limited creatures
0:21:11 that we can't really even we can
0:21:14 understand the meaning of it and there's
0:21:16 no contradiction with it but can we can
0:21:19 we grasp it from a first person
0:21:20 perspective to understand what it's like
0:21:23 well no certainly not
0:21:25 um and no theist I mean
0:21:28 well I shouldn't say no but as I'm sure
0:21:31 there are some weird views out there but
0:21:33 the majority of theists will be humble
0:21:36 enough to say very simple that we don't
0:21:38 know God as he knows himself God has
0:21:41 perfect knowledge he has perfect
0:21:42 knowledge of himself and everything in
0:21:44 creation
0:21:45 and we don't have perfect knowledge of
0:21:48 ourselves or really anything in creation
0:21:50 uh let alone God right so this is this
0:21:53 is a clear difference where
0:21:55 um we're never going to know God fully
0:21:57 as he knows himself uh it's just not
0:22:00 possible because of the nature of
0:22:02 creation the fact that we're limited
0:22:04 finite creatures
0:22:06 um so yeah there's nothing contradictory
0:22:08 about this whatsoever
0:22:11 um and it's just a fact of the matter
0:22:12 that every theist is going to accept
0:22:14 it's nothing new it's nothing that's
0:22:16 been invented you know a year ago or 500
0:22:20 years ago it's it's always been this way
0:22:22 uh and this has always been the Islamic
0:22:25 position
0:22:26 hey Jason something after a month in
0:22:29 eastenda uh which is saying that that if
0:22:32 the foundations of a belief you're
0:22:34 having to appeal to mystery
0:22:36 then maybe I misunderstood what you said
0:22:39 after Rahman uh but he sounded like if
0:22:42 the foundations of your belief you have
0:22:44 to appeal to a mystery then it's
0:22:46 problematic but then the foundation of a
0:22:49 muslim's belief in God
0:22:51 uh and the you know the nature of God
0:22:54 would be wouldn't we wouldn't be able to
0:22:57 fully comprehend
0:22:59 foreign
0:23:01 was that if it's something that um
0:23:06 is required to be understood if it's
0:23:10 something that needs to be intelligible
0:23:12 in order for the belief to be rationally
0:23:14 assessed and if the truth or falsity of
0:23:16 the belief is going to be based on a uh
0:23:19 um a specific
0:23:22 belief or position or proposition that
0:23:25 seems to be internally inconsistent
0:23:28 and you appeal to mystery
0:23:31 well fine but then if I want to assess
0:23:33 the belief on the basis of what this uh
0:23:38 proposition means then that's going to
0:23:40 be a problem
0:23:41 so like in the case of the Trinity for
0:23:43 example right
0:23:45 um we we want to be we're concerned with
0:23:49 um
0:23:51 as monotheists were concerned with the
0:23:54 the the fact that God is one there's
0:23:56 only one Creator right and we want to
0:23:58 know what that means and we want to know
0:24:00 when we're assessing different religions
0:24:02 uh what their concept of God uh looks
0:24:06 like in relation to this you know
0:24:09 monotheistic uh background we're coming
0:24:11 with so um if at the core of that
0:24:15 religion lies a belief that makes
0:24:18 unintelligible the facts about God's
0:24:20 Oneness or lack thereof then that's
0:24:24 going to be a huge cost in terms of me
0:24:26 my capability of assessing whether or
0:24:28 not this is
0:24:29 the true religion that must be
0:24:33 monotheistic
0:24:34 okay well look an atheist might turn
0:24:37 around and say okay
0:24:38 because when an atheist hears a term
0:24:39 appeal to mystery what he's thinking of
0:24:42 is you don't have evidence you don't
0:24:44 have just fake justifications you can't
0:24:46 even understand it and yet you're just
0:24:48 saying it's mysterious and you're
0:24:50 appealing to that as a belief system how
0:24:52 could that ever be
0:24:54 rationally Justified can you say can you
0:24:58 mention that last part again just a
0:24:59 couple of seconds so I'm just saying in
0:25:01 terms of how can you be justified in
0:25:04 appealing to mystery you know because a
0:25:07 mystery for an atheist well I'm not
0:25:08 talking about all atheists but you know
0:25:10 your typical atheist is like you know
0:25:12 you don't have reasons you don't have
0:25:13 understanding you know you can't
0:25:15 comprehend this thing called God day are
0:25:18 you still believe in it why would you
0:25:20 believe in something that you know you
0:25:22 don't seem to have any sort of you know
0:25:24 it's mystery I mean what they would mean
0:25:27 there I think what they should mean is
0:25:30 like basically like an appeal to
0:25:31 ignorance or something that I don't know
0:25:35 therefore X right so based on something
0:25:39 you're ignorant of you form a belief
0:25:42 that that would be uh um wrong of course
0:25:45 but if it's an appeal to mystery in the
0:25:47 sense that we don't know everything that
0:25:49 will that just applies across the board
0:25:50 to everybody so so what about atheists
0:25:53 and do atheists appeal to mystery
0:25:57 okay I think quite clearly yeah I mean
0:26:01 everybody has to really yeah I think I
0:26:03 think they do and it's it's it would
0:26:05 almost be weird for an atheist to really
0:26:08 press this issue because in fact they at
0:26:12 least in the way that we're using the
0:26:13 word mystery
0:26:15 they're very happy with mystery and in
0:26:17 fact
0:26:18 um when you try to prod them to to give
0:26:21 an answer about something and they
0:26:23 constantly want to say well I don't know
0:26:25 I'm not sure we don't have the
0:26:27 information for this to really decide
0:26:29 and you know draw a conclusion on it
0:26:31 yada yada they they actually see that as
0:26:35 as something that is of of value and
0:26:38 something that is virtuous to actually
0:26:40 appeal to mystery when you don't fully
0:26:43 understand something right like maybe
0:26:45 the nature especially of the origins of
0:26:48 things the origin of
0:26:51 um existence the origin of Life uh the
0:26:56 origin of human species and so on I mean
0:26:59 they many times will say well we don't
0:27:02 have an answer to any of these things
0:27:03 and neither do you so so what just kind
0:27:05 of like be quiet and
0:27:08 um they actually get annoyed when
0:27:10 um theists will speak about those issues
0:27:13 in what they consider to be too much
0:27:16 details that they don't think we have
0:27:17 the information for right so they're
0:27:20 probably the last group that should be
0:27:22 uh complaining about appealing to
0:27:25 mystery in the sense that we're
0:27:26 describing it uh in the sense of having
0:27:29 a lack of information and not going into
0:27:31 further detail explaining things that we
0:27:34 don't have the information for because
0:27:37 they actually see it as uh from what I
0:27:40 can tell anyway virtuous thing yeah I
0:27:43 think a good example of that also is a
0:27:45 consciousness
0:27:46 so yeah that's another one originally
0:27:48 yeah everybody believes that we are
0:27:50 conscious beings but what you'll find is
0:27:52 that atheist theists whoever is there's
0:27:56 generally an appeal to mystery I the
0:27:58 fact that we don't really understand it
0:27:59 uh and certainly if you're like an
0:28:02 atheist and trying to explain
0:28:03 Consciousness under a materialistic
0:28:05 Paradigm then that is an appeal to
0:28:07 mystery they say they exist they believe
0:28:09 it exists in human beings but they can't
0:28:11 reduce it to the physical but it doesn't
0:28:13 mean that therefore they don't think it
0:28:14 is reduced to the physical so they're
0:28:17 still accepting it as in that case Okay
0:28:20 so let's let's move on so
0:28:22 um let's talk about so we talk about
0:28:24 about the atheist let's talk about uh
0:28:26 some Christians as well because this
0:28:29 tends to be sometimes an argument
0:28:32 against Muslims in defense of
0:28:34 Christianity which is that both Muslims
0:28:37 and Christians both are in the same boat
0:28:39 yeah as both religious beliefs have some
0:28:44 sort of in their theology you have some
0:28:46 sort of appeal or claim to an appeal to
0:28:49 mystery
0:28:50 it's just that we have for the
0:28:52 Christians they have their mystery and
0:28:54 for the Muslims we have our mystery how
0:28:56 is it that Muslim go and pick out
0:28:59 the Christian Mysteries while being
0:29:02 inconsistent epistemically according to
0:29:04 them
0:29:07 yeah so
0:29:09 um
0:29:09 I mean we'll get to it a little bit
0:29:12 later but it would be the Christian's
0:29:14 Duty uh to try to show what the Muslim
0:29:18 mystery supposedly are if they're just
0:29:21 talking about simple things like we just
0:29:23 discussed like um fully comprehending
0:29:26 God as he knows himself perfectly well
0:29:30 but let's say for the sake of argument
0:29:32 that that was a cost which I don't think
0:29:34 it is and I don't even think Christians
0:29:36 consider it a cost but let's say that it
0:29:38 was well in that case the Christian
0:29:40 would have the same cost and so they
0:29:42 would just cancel out right so many of
0:29:44 the the issues
0:29:47 um in which a Christian is actually
0:29:49 going to point to to say well a Muslim
0:29:52 has to appeal to mystery or the Muslim
0:29:54 can't fully understand God in that
0:29:56 situation they have the same thing that
0:30:00 they're claiming that we have right so
0:30:02 that's just going to cancel each other
0:30:04 out but then in terms of cost that they
0:30:07 have that we don't well I'm certainly
0:30:10 going to argue that there are there are
0:30:11 many more right and on the reverse I
0:30:13 don't think the Muslim really has very
0:30:15 many things that they need to appeal to
0:30:18 as a mystery that is unique to Islam
0:30:20 rather than unique to Christianity right
0:30:23 and that that's just for the sake of
0:30:25 argument but the first thing they really
0:30:28 need to do is they really need to point
0:30:30 out what actually the apparent problem
0:30:34 is that is unique to Islam that we need
0:30:37 to appeal to mystery about and I don't
0:30:40 think that there are very many things
0:30:41 that they can actually uh do with that
0:30:44 so I do see a fundamental difference
0:30:46 between Muslim or Islamic Theology and
0:30:49 Christian Theology and that the things
0:30:52 that they typically would appeal to to
0:30:54 try to say well you Muslims have to
0:30:56 appeal to mystery because you don't
0:30:57 fully understand how God is omniscient
0:31:00 or Eternal or yada yada they have all
0:31:03 those same things in which they don't
0:31:06 find problematic and even really
0:31:08 atheists for the most part don't find
0:31:10 those things very problematic right so
0:31:13 the way in which they're using the word
0:31:15 mystery and it's functioning when
0:31:18 criticizing Muslims is not really the
0:31:20 same as how it's functioning uh when
0:31:22 applied to their own positions
0:31:25 can you just expand on this point about
0:31:27 costs costs is it cost benefit analysis
0:31:30 type of thing guys could you just sort
0:31:33 of expect you in an argument in the
0:31:35 ability to evaluate belief systems why
0:31:38 do we look at costs in this situation
0:31:41 yeah well as Jake was just saying right
0:31:45 he's like if we grant for the sake of
0:31:47 argument right that um
0:31:49 uh our not comprehending
0:31:53 the the the the essence of God true
0:31:56 nature of God in the same way he knows
0:31:58 him on his own self perfectly
0:32:01 if we're going to for the sake of
0:32:03 argument assume that that's a
0:32:04 contradiction sorry that's a cost which
0:32:06 it obviously is not
0:32:09 then
0:32:11 um the question really is just to sum it
0:32:13 up really what cost does the Muslim
0:32:16 conception of God have
0:32:18 that uh a Christian concession of God
0:32:22 wouldn't
0:32:23 right uh so you just put the Trinity
0:32:26 Away really there really is no
0:32:28 difference like
0:32:30 um so so what costs in terms of uh
0:32:33 basically this topic can appeal to
0:32:35 mystery what missing information is
0:32:37 there going to be
0:32:39 that uh counts as a cost for our
0:32:44 theory that wouldn't equally apply to
0:32:47 theirs I honestly can't think of any so
0:32:50 yeah and the costs here are costs in not
0:32:54 having the ability to explain a certain
0:32:56 thing because we're limited creatures
0:32:58 and we're trying to talk about matters
0:33:00 of the Unseen so we're not talking about
0:33:02 human for the sake of argument that it's
0:33:04 a cost because because their response
0:33:06 would only be meaningful if they point
0:33:10 back to a cost within the uh an Islamic
0:33:14 formulation of to hit for example where
0:33:15 there is an appeal to mystery that is
0:33:18 problematic that counts as a cost in
0:33:22 terms of like you know Theory analysis
0:33:24 right yeah so or Theory evaluation so so
0:33:28 um so if we assume for the sake of
0:33:30 argument it's just to simplify the
0:33:32 response rate so let's just assume any
0:33:34 appeal to mystery or any kind of mystery
0:33:36 is a cost
0:33:37 so it doesn't necessarily have to be a
0:33:39 cost but you just say it does it does it
0:33:41 yeah so we're just assuming for the sake
0:33:43 of Simplicity if any kind of mystery is
0:33:44 a cost what mystery does the Muslim
0:33:47 conception of God have that wouldn't
0:33:49 apply to the Christian conception of God
0:33:52 minus the trinitarianism like just put
0:33:54 the trinitarianism aside
0:33:56 and really what uh what would the
0:33:59 difference be I just I'm not really
0:34:00 seeing it okay cool so
0:34:03 um
0:34:04 so yes I think that's an important point
0:34:06 is that you know what Christians are
0:34:09 pointing to regards to Muslim theology
0:34:10 they also have the same problems or not
0:34:13 the same problems they also lack in some
0:34:15 areas of being able to explain certain
0:34:16 things but it's just important to add
0:34:19 sorry yeah it's important to add that
0:34:20 clearly there are different like
0:34:23 formulations of what you know uh
0:34:25 Christian uh conception a God would look
0:34:28 like and the same as true on the Muslim
0:34:30 side yeah would you think all things
0:34:32 being equal right because
0:34:34 um you've got different schools here
0:34:35 different schools there uh and uh like
0:34:38 you've got Divine Simplicity here you've
0:34:39 got Divine Simplicity there you've got
0:34:41 uh uh
0:34:43 um uh complexity here complexity there
0:34:45 and you've got so different formulations
0:34:46 on both sides so just looking at it more
0:34:49 like holistically uh uh obviously it can
0:34:52 be more detailed but just to simplify
0:34:54 the answer I don't see a difference in
0:34:57 terms of the cost of mystery if we're
0:35:00 going to consider these Mysteries costs
0:35:02 okay so let's go into a specification
0:35:04 example which is like the
0:35:07 the main difference or the main example
0:35:09 so you know in terms of Christianity or
0:35:12 one of the key uh points that Muslims
0:35:14 point to so of course Muslims often
0:35:17 point to and say look this Trinity
0:35:18 doesn't make any sense yeah they all
0:35:21 turn around and say look it makes sense
0:35:23 because you've got one being and three
0:35:26 persons How can there be a contradiction
0:35:29 there you know and then they'll say to
0:35:32 understand and fully comprehend it is a
0:35:34 mystery you've got one being a multiple
0:35:37 attributes so how could you you know uh
0:35:41 you know claim that there's some sort of
0:35:44 uh logical contradiction so what is
0:35:46 what would be the burden of proof of the
0:35:49 Muslim now when he's talking to a
0:35:51 Christian about the trinity in order to
0:35:53 demonstrate that there's a unique issue
0:35:55 there Jake
0:35:57 yeah so it's just like what we said in
0:35:59 the beginning like if I claim that the
0:36:02 there's a contradiction inherent in the
0:36:04 Trinity it's my obligation to spell out
0:36:07 exactly what that is and
0:36:10 um thankfully enough the Christians
0:36:12 themselves have actually spelled it out
0:36:14 for us so we don't even really need to
0:36:16 do uh much work because they've they've
0:36:19 already done it for us so you have
0:36:21 things like in the case of the Trinity
0:36:23 The Logical problem of the Trinity which
0:36:25 people uh have heard me explain many
0:36:28 times
0:36:30 um which is basically the idea of
0:36:33 how you can have one God uh if you have
0:36:37 three individuals each which are fully
0:36:40 God and they're not each other so in the
0:36:42 case of the Trinity you have the father
0:36:43 is God the son is God the holy spirit is
0:36:46 God right but they're not each other and
0:36:49 yet there's only one God well the claim
0:36:52 is that if each one of them is
0:36:54 individually fully God and they're not
0:36:56 each other well then you would just
0:36:58 count as we normally count one two three
0:37:01 and there would be three Gods but yet
0:37:03 you're telling us there's only one God
0:37:04 so that's a contradiction because you're
0:37:07 saying there's what you actually claim
0:37:10 entails that there are three Gods but
0:37:12 yet you are actually claiming that
0:37:15 there's only one God so you're
0:37:16 simultaneously affirming three gods and
0:37:19 one God at the same time
0:37:21 um another sort of logical problem that
0:37:24 is related to that is explaining how you
0:37:27 can say that the father is God and the
0:37:30 son is God and yet they're not each
0:37:33 other because
0:37:34 in order for really for there to be one
0:37:36 God you're going to want to say that
0:37:38 there's an identity relation being made
0:37:41 there so if the father's God and there's
0:37:43 only one God well then he's going to
0:37:45 have to be identical to uh to God and if
0:37:48 the Sun is identical to God well then
0:37:50 it's just going to follow that the
0:37:52 father and the son are the same they're
0:37:54 identical to each other and that's
0:37:56 heretical that's that's modalism so
0:37:59 you're going to run into I mean I can go
0:38:03 on in a lot more detail about more so
0:38:05 what the problems are what all of the
0:38:07 different options are where they can go
0:38:09 and why you're going to run into any
0:38:10 problem anywhere you go but the reality
0:38:12 is is with the doctrine of the trinity
0:38:15 you're really either going to have
0:38:16 incoherence or you're going to have to
0:38:20 um take a heretical view
0:38:22 um that that's the reality
0:38:25 okay so I think in essence what you're
0:38:28 saying is that you we can demonstrate at
0:38:31 least as an apparent contradiction and
0:38:34 as soon as we demonstrate an apparent
0:38:35 contradiction then after a burden of
0:38:37 proof to demonstrate it's not an
0:38:39 apparent contradiction uh if they claim
0:38:42 it's not a contradiction uh they can't
0:38:45 at that situation now appeal to mystery
0:38:48 because appeal to mystery in that
0:38:49 situation would be just saying well it
0:38:52 is a contradiction we just don't have a
0:38:53 way of explaining it yeah so
0:38:57 you know and in that situation when
0:38:59 you're trying to assess belief systems
0:39:01 now you've got one belief system that
0:39:03 doesn't seem to have any of these types
0:39:05 of logical contradictions and another
0:39:07 belief system that has these apological
0:39:09 contradictions both may appeal to a
0:39:12 mystery and some aspects of their
0:39:14 theology but one is appealing to a
0:39:16 mystery when it comes to being able to
0:39:18 explain and demonstrate that their
0:39:20 belief is not a contradiction yeah and
0:39:22 that's a key difference uh between that
0:39:26 um so uh yeah so now I want to go into
0:39:31 the question
0:39:33 um
0:39:34 specifically
0:39:36 uh right one second one second
0:39:40 because uh now because what what they're
0:39:43 gonna point at they're gonna sit around
0:39:45 and say oh some people might turn around
0:39:46 and say uh is that they may turn around
0:39:50 and say
0:39:51 okay but you guys also believe in a
0:39:55 logical contradiction or they try to
0:39:57 claim it's a logical oh they gave me
0:39:59 some sort of mystery or whatever it is
0:40:00 or contradiction
0:40:02 uh when it comes to the Quran they say
0:40:04 the Quran is a speech of Allah
0:40:06 subhanallah
0:40:08 and that you know it's not created it
0:40:13 comes down to us so we have this
0:40:16 attribute this Divine attribute that
0:40:18 manifests in the created Realm
0:40:21 yeah
0:40:23 so I don't know if anybody wants to take
0:40:25 that question yeah so
0:40:29 um so part so part of the issue is
0:40:32 um
0:40:34 so the reason why it's okay I was going
0:40:36 to say the reason why I've not really
0:40:37 elaborated upon the question too much is
0:40:39 because Christians don't actually
0:40:40 elaborate upon what well is that's
0:40:43 exactly what I was gonna just say right
0:40:45 now so like me I can point out
0:40:49 systematically exactly what the
0:40:52 contradiction is with the Trinity right
0:40:54 like I can put it in seven premises show
0:40:58 you how those seven premises form an
0:41:00 inconsistent set I can show you that
0:41:03 Christian Scholars themselves admit this
0:41:06 they write about The Logical problem the
0:41:08 Trinity they try to respond to these
0:41:10 problems Etc we don't have anything like
0:41:13 that in our literature we don't have
0:41:15 anything like that even from the
0:41:17 literature of people critiquing our
0:41:19 views showing how the belief that the
0:41:22 Quran is the speech or the word of Allah
0:41:26 we don't have anything from that showing
0:41:29 precisely exactly how it's a
0:41:31 contradiction right so part of the
0:41:33 problem is is to try to reconstruct or
0:41:37 construct what we think they're trying
0:41:39 to say where the contradiction or
0:41:41 problem actually is and do the work for
0:41:43 them right but that's almost giving them
0:41:45 too much credit really if that's what
0:41:48 they want to do whether it be Christian
0:41:49 or atheists whoever they should explain
0:41:52 to us exactly in clear uh formal logic
0:41:56 exactly what the contradiction is
0:41:58 otherwise there is nothing maybe
0:42:00 something you don't understand or
0:42:02 something seems strange or whatever but
0:42:05 as far as I know there is no
0:42:06 contradiction I don't know anything
0:42:07 called The Logical problem of
0:42:12 um the speech of Allah and where it's
0:42:14 being written about uh classically and
0:42:17 today I don't see anything like that
0:42:18 right so people people need to uh if
0:42:23 they want to going back to what we
0:42:25 originally said Sharif is if they're the
0:42:27 one making the claim they need to very
0:42:30 clearly establish what the A and not a
0:42:33 contradiction is as far as I know there
0:42:35 isn't with the the Quran being the
0:42:37 speech of Allah now I mean we can
0:42:39 elaborate on
0:42:42 um you know what that means and the
0:42:44 different positions that have been given
0:42:46 in the tradition the one that I may take
0:42:49 and the ones that I would argue against
0:42:50 or disagree with we can do all of that
0:42:53 but I would say really none of those
0:42:56 positions are inherently contradictory
0:43:00 you could disagree with them
0:43:01 theologically but they're not
0:43:03 necessarily contradictory okay let me
0:43:05 ask let me ask them Jake do any of the
0:43:09 positions within the Islamic schools
0:43:10 believe that the actual Quran that we
0:43:13 physically hold and physically recite is
0:43:17 an incarnation of the Divine
0:43:21 no nobody believes that
0:43:24 yeah so just on that basis then there's
0:43:28 no I mean
0:43:29 just add to what Jake was saying
0:43:32 It Seems like by doing this what are you
0:43:36 know our Christian friends would be
0:43:37 doing
0:43:38 is that they'd be just adding
0:43:40 logical problems of you know fill in the
0:43:43 blank on their side too because so you
0:43:46 see it's not like God doesn't have
0:43:47 speech and God doesn't send Revelation
0:43:49 within the judeo-christian tradition
0:43:51 right
0:43:52 so so
0:43:54 um so well what's God's God's speech in
0:43:56 in in in there is it is it created is
0:43:59 that one created
0:44:01 um are you gonna have the same
0:44:03 discussion so um so if you're looking at
0:44:06 so so if you're looking at the the
0:44:08 attributes of God again so that's that's
0:44:10 what I meant earlier when I said well
0:44:12 let's look at the Christian conception
0:44:14 of God the Muslim conception of God and
0:44:15 tell me what kind of uh appealed to
0:44:18 mystery or logical problem there would
0:44:20 be that wouldn't also apply to
0:44:23 the Christian conception of God you know
0:44:25 just mine I think I think what they're
0:44:28 trying to do is they're trying to say
0:44:29 fire on all your houses yeah or play got
0:44:32 no houses effectively saying yeah we've
0:44:35 got the problem but everybody's got a
0:44:37 problem yeah you've got a problem I've
0:44:39 got a problem we've all got a problem so
0:44:41 that's what they're saying because I
0:44:43 because I don't think there's nothing in
0:44:45 their literature called You Know The
0:44:47 Logical problem of God's speech God's
0:44:50 word they don't they don't they don't
0:44:51 acknowledge that as a genuine problem
0:44:53 okay
0:44:55 so it's it's really whatever they throw
0:44:59 back at the Muslim
0:45:01 I just want to know how that couldn't
0:45:03 equally be applied to a
0:45:07 Christianity as well
0:45:09 God has these attributes and sends
0:45:11 Revelation and has speech and all that
0:45:13 stuff within the Christian traditional
0:45:18 yeah so uh so yeah so I think that's
0:45:22 really important point because let me
0:45:23 just sort of emphasize with the audience
0:45:25 what you're saying is that Christians
0:45:27 also have this idea that God speaks but
0:45:30 they don't have like Jake has mentioned
0:45:33 before their own literature that talks
0:45:35 about this as being a logical
0:45:37 contradiction that needs solving so now
0:45:39 when they're talking about the Muslims
0:45:41 and they misrepresent one they don't
0:45:43 present the argument as to why it's a
0:45:45 logical contradiction and therefore
0:45:47 equivalent to The Logical problem of the
0:45:49 Trinity secondly is that they try to
0:45:53 claim something that Muslims don't
0:45:54 believe so Muslims don't believe that
0:45:56 the Quran in the very schools of thought
0:45:58 on this particular issue that the Quran
0:46:00 is literally an incarnation of God or
0:46:03 the Divine into the Physical Realm
0:46:07 um and also the final point which is to
0:46:11 say well they don't even see it as a
0:46:12 problem in their own literature anyway
0:46:14 so you know why would uh why would they
0:46:17 be raising it against the Muslims in
0:46:19 that sense well okay there's another
0:46:20 thing that they'll raise uh that uh that
0:46:23 they may or they may raise which is the
0:46:26 claims of the attributes of Allah like
0:46:28 Mercy or justice of God they'll say look
0:46:32 we can't know this precisely and if we
0:46:34 don't isn't this an appeal to mystery
0:46:37 and we can thus say and thus say
0:46:40 anything about them in any can we thus
0:46:43 say anything about them in a meaningful
0:46:44 way can we really talk about the mercy
0:46:46 of God if we can't really understand
0:46:47 it's true reality yeah
0:46:51 something
0:46:53 the question
0:46:55 um
0:46:56 so we're saying we don't know the
0:46:57 attributes of God fully how can we if we
0:47:01 can't understand the attributes of
0:47:02 godfully how can we even talk about them
0:47:04 in any meaningful way if we can't talk
0:47:07 about them in any meaningful way then
0:47:09 you guys are in this mystery way like
0:47:11 we're talking about the persons of God
0:47:13 that's a mystery as well
0:47:15 yeah I mean um it goes back to what I
0:47:19 was saying earlier about knowledge right
0:47:21 and um
0:47:22 I think people should sort of keep this
0:47:25 principle in mind
0:47:27 um that pretty much anything that you
0:47:30 can say about God when when it comes to
0:47:32 a particular attribute or his essence
0:47:34 you should be able to say it about
0:47:37 another attribute right so just as I
0:47:40 can't fully comprehend or understand
0:47:43 um God's knowledge likewise it can't
0:47:45 fully comprehend or understand God's
0:47:48 mercy or Justice there's no
0:47:49 contradiction inherent within that so
0:47:51 again I mean it sounds like um we're
0:47:55 being a bit defensive but we're actually
0:47:57 not we're saying come on present what
0:47:59 exactly the contradiction is give us the
0:48:01 clear example of a and not a and we've
0:48:04 actually done this on on streams before
0:48:06 uh on things related to God uh and his
0:48:10 uh his goodness and evil in the world
0:48:13 and things like that right because it's
0:48:16 it's almost like saying well I don't
0:48:18 know why God allowed such and such to
0:48:22 occur therefore there's a contradiction
0:48:25 well no no there's no contradiction I
0:48:27 just don't know why that he willed that
0:48:30 event or why that he allowed that event
0:48:32 to occur
0:48:33 that there's nothing contradictory about
0:48:36 that it's just I don't have the full
0:48:38 information in order to make an
0:48:40 assessment on why something happened or
0:48:43 why God willed a particular thing
0:48:46 but there's nothing contradiction a
0:48:48 contradictory about that and that's
0:48:49 going to apply for things like God's
0:48:51 mercy and Justice so again I think we
0:48:54 just back to square one that we don't
0:48:57 really have a clear example of a
0:48:59 contradiction
0:49:01 okay what about in terms of the fact
0:49:03 that people turn around and say okay but
0:49:05 any explanation of God's mercy or
0:49:08 Justice or wrath would be in sort of
0:49:12 human terms would not make it some sort
0:49:15 of slitted in some sort of way that
0:49:17 you're trying to understand the
0:49:18 attributes of God these are these are
0:49:21 meant to be meaningful to us when we say
0:49:23 Allah
0:49:25 but then
0:49:27 to make it meaningful that would mean
0:49:30 that it would have to have some sort of
0:49:32 uh meaning that we can correspond with
0:49:35 and if we're corresponding to it we
0:49:38 think in limited context so therefore
0:49:40 wouldn't that mean that
0:49:42 you know we're contradicting
0:49:45 uh the nature of God who's not limited
0:49:48 but will be Unlimited
0:49:50 we're making tissue basically we're
0:49:52 making similarity between God's
0:49:54 attributes and creation
0:49:57 yeah that's right uh I don't know if you
0:49:59 want to respond to that abdirahman
0:50:02 or do you want me to a quick recapture
0:50:04 if just because I heard you but I was
0:50:07 kind of like in terms of saying in terms
0:50:09 of saying for example that
0:50:11 uh this may be moving away from
0:50:13 Christians now uh but maybe somebody
0:50:15 might turn around and say look you're
0:50:18 saying that God is merciful
0:50:20 uh the idea of God being merciful would
0:50:23 have to you would have to have a
0:50:25 comprehension of Mercy in your mind as a
0:50:28 human being the only thing that we know
0:50:29 of Mercy would be limited things things
0:50:32 that creatures do and so therefore to
0:50:36 correspond that to to Allah
0:50:38 yeah wouldn't that therefore mean that
0:50:41 we are limiting Allah by using these
0:50:44 types of adjectives like Mercy wrath or
0:50:47 Justice or wisdom
0:50:50 yeah I mean I mean first of all that
0:50:52 wouldn't really have anything to do with
0:50:54 mystery right because
0:50:56 um
0:50:57 uh it would actually be the opposite
0:50:58 right so so it'd be like um
0:51:01 if if the charge is that there is Tesh B
0:51:05 then it's it's not really a mystery it's
0:51:07 like you're you're saying something
0:51:09 about God that you know of creation so I
0:51:12 don't think that'll be a charge of like
0:51:14 an appear to appeal to mystery but uh
0:51:17 but again I mean just the claim in
0:51:19 itself is
0:51:20 um
0:51:20 is is strange it's uh what is what is
0:51:24 what they're trying to say is
0:51:26 uh because God is dissimilar to creation
0:51:30 and he is uh uh far above
0:51:34 uh you know being having any like the
0:51:37 deficiencies of creation and stuff like
0:51:38 that then we couldn't say anything about
0:51:41 him because all of our knowledge is
0:51:44 based in experience
0:51:46 uh and and that's just a whole other
0:51:49 discussion on its own because uh uh we
0:51:52 we talk about things that are not within
0:51:55 our experience all the time
0:51:57 and we have the capability to do that
0:52:01 and there are many examples that that
0:52:03 you know can be discussed with regard to
0:52:06 that uh and uh long story short in
0:52:09 predicating something of God right that
0:52:12 has a certain aspect that uh is
0:52:17 applicable to Creation like the word
0:52:19 would be applicable also to Creation uh
0:52:22 does not mean that there's some sense of
0:52:28 will be a whole discussion on its own
0:52:30 and then how every school sees there
0:52:33 should be so again this is as you said
0:52:36 it's moving away from Christianity but
0:52:38 um
0:52:39 I I don't think really anything anybody
0:52:42 uh regardless of their world we could
0:52:44 consistently uh make the claim that um
0:52:48 we can't use words that you know uh uh
0:52:52 um we've we've uh developed from within
0:52:55 our experience to talk about things that
0:52:57 are not in our experience and things
0:52:59 that are actually very dissimilar to our
0:53:02 experience uh that I think that would be
0:53:04 problematic on many many levels yeah I
0:53:07 think um I think the issue is this is
0:53:09 that when we talk about God's mercy and
0:53:11 we talk about human Mercy we're not
0:53:12 talking about them in an identical sense
0:53:14 I think that's the key issue uh Jake I
0:53:17 don't know if you wanted to add any
0:53:18 points to what uh Abrahim said in terms
0:53:20 of that specific question
0:53:24 um
0:53:25 not really other than uh just going off
0:53:28 of what you last said yeah we don't mean
0:53:30 it in an identical sense like God's
0:53:33 knowledge is not the same thing as as
0:53:35 Jake's knowledge there's obviously clear
0:53:37 differences that we can speak about uh
0:53:40 between them but uh even even besides
0:53:44 the differences that we know of there
0:53:46 are certain things about the specific
0:53:48 attributes that we don't know of that we
0:53:50 we know there's a difference but we
0:53:52 can't even say much more as to what some
0:53:54 of those differences are that we're not
0:53:56 aware of
0:53:58 um but yeah I don't I don't really see
0:54:00 any problem in that whatsoever because
0:54:03 we're going to use language that we are
0:54:06 familiar with and that is given to us in
0:54:09 the Revelation itself and apply it to
0:54:11 God as he's done it for himself he says
0:54:14 that he's he's knowledgeable that he has
0:54:17 power that he has will uh that he has
0:54:19 life ability et cetera Etc and so
0:54:22 there's no harm in using those terms so
0:54:24 long as we understand and we don't
0:54:26 anthropomorphize God which we're going
0:54:29 to get to in a second in a sense that we
0:54:31 try to make or liken him like creation
0:54:34 as if he's some type of human being or
0:54:37 anything uh similar to that no certainly
0:54:40 not but we are within our rights to use
0:54:43 the language that the Quran and the
0:54:45 Sunnah in our case in our tradition has
0:54:48 given us in which God speaks about
0:54:50 himself in that way so long as we
0:54:53 understand the correct parameters of
0:54:55 everything that we just discussed that
0:54:57 there are clear differences between
0:54:59 God's knowledge and our knowledge and
0:55:02 and all of the other other attributes
0:55:04 that are mentioned right there is a
0:55:06 comment here from free naturalist he
0:55:09 said if we can't fully understand the
0:55:12 knowledge of the necessary being
0:55:13 wouldn't that also mean we can't fully
0:55:16 understand God's capabilities I'm not
0:55:19 sure what he means by
0:55:21 um
0:55:22 God's capabilities
0:55:25 um
0:55:26 because typically when you say what is
0:55:29 God capable or able to do well you're
0:55:33 just going to understand that as
0:55:34 something like God's power meaning that
0:55:36 he can he can do anything logically or
0:55:38 or if you want metaphysically possible
0:55:41 um but I'm not sure what you mean by
0:55:44 not sure what you mean by his
0:55:45 capabilities
0:55:49 I think he might responding so how then
0:55:52 would you know if God or not God can
0:55:54 limited himself to a finite existence
0:55:57 okay that's a good career
0:55:58 it's a typical question
0:56:01 okay I mean well yeah that that's
0:56:03 basically saying something like well is
0:56:06 it possible for God to become a man or
0:56:08 for something like the Incarnation to be
0:56:10 true and
0:56:12 um we know that that's not the case
0:56:14 because it's a contradiction and if you
0:56:16 want to say that God is quote unquote
0:56:18 limited by contradictions
0:56:21 sure you can say that but we don't use
0:56:23 that terminology because we don't
0:56:25 believe that contradictions are actually
0:56:27 things that God can or cannot do it's
0:56:31 like saying well can can God be a rock
0:56:33 or can God create another God well no it
0:56:36 can't because God himself is cannot be
0:56:40 um finite or Limited in the sense of
0:56:43 becoming creation or becoming a man and
0:56:45 being you know all-knowing and at the
0:56:48 same time ignorant that's a
0:56:50 contradiction to say that a single being
0:56:52 at the same time is both you know
0:56:56 Eternal and created he is both
0:56:58 omniscient and ignorant he's both
0:57:01 all-powerful and lacks power
0:57:05 the that's why God cannot uh become a
0:57:09 man or limit himself in that way because
0:57:11 it results in affirming uh a
0:57:13 contradiction which at the outset we
0:57:15 said we're not you know in the business
0:57:18 of doing
0:57:19 yeah I think it goes back to the
0:57:21 beginning of the stream where we talked
0:57:22 about how what a logical contradiction
0:57:24 is is really some sort of propositional
0:57:27 belief or some sort of belief that
0:57:30 although the sentence might make sense I
0:57:33 might understand the individual
0:57:34 component words the actual sentence in a
0:57:38 grammatical sense uh is meaningless yeah
0:57:41 the semantics of the sentence is
0:57:43 meaningless there's no meaning you can
0:57:44 grab from that uh sentence so like you
0:57:47 said marriage Bachelor or a four-sided
0:57:50 triangle or squared circle on it you
0:57:54 know flat plane whatever it is yeah
0:57:55 those words that you're bringing
0:57:58 together I understand each individual
0:57:59 component word but as soon as I bring it
0:58:01 together I don't have a meaningful
0:58:02 sentence yeah so when we're saying can
0:58:06 God do X
0:58:07 what x has to be something that's
0:58:10 meaningful that's why when people say
0:58:12 God is all powerful has capabilities
0:58:15 what we're saying is God is capable of
0:58:18 all logical things or as some may say oh
0:58:21 metaphysically possible things yeah so
0:58:25 therefore anything that is not
0:58:27 considered logically possible logically
0:58:30 impossible is not a thing that can be
0:58:32 even conceived of yeah it doesn't it's
0:58:35 meaningless it's gibberish yeah she's
0:58:38 literally stringing words together in an
0:58:41 incoherent sentence and saying can God
0:58:43 do that and you're like well what does
0:58:44 that mean and like I don't know yeah so
0:58:47 it's just a meaningless Point yeah so I
0:58:49 think people need to understand and
0:58:51 think maybe it's an argument I love
0:58:52 atheists bring up about the they call it
0:58:54 the omnipotence Paradox and it's just uh
0:58:58 it's it's just
0:59:00 they don't understand some of the basic
0:59:01 points basically so anyways it's a good
0:59:04 question though for that asking that
0:59:06 question yeah somebody somebody asked in
0:59:08 the chat um uh Jake is wearing green so
0:59:11 logical contradictions may be possible
0:59:15 so so yeah that that's that's an example
0:59:18 of something that is um unlikely on the
0:59:21 tap streams but it's it's certainly not
0:59:24 a uh a logical contradiction right so
0:59:27 that's actually a good example to show
0:59:30 um
0:59:33 yeah it might be difficult to understand
0:59:35 why I'm wearing green right considering
0:59:38 I always usually wear red but there's
0:59:40 nothing contradictory about it it might
0:59:42 just be a little strange okay so I will
0:59:46 go to question and you know we're gonna
0:59:49 get send the link out so people can join
0:59:51 the link inshallah so don't worry guys
0:59:52 but there's one final question that I
0:59:55 want to ask here which is related to the
0:59:57 one buff that we've talked about and
0:59:59 this is really to do with what about
1:00:00 because again people might bring this up
1:00:02 what about the terms like the hand of
1:00:04 Allah
1:00:06 and other such attributes that some
1:00:09 claim uh sort of present an
1:00:12 anthropomorphic yeah picture of Allah
1:00:15 isn't claiming that we don't know his
1:00:17 houndness or total meaning akin to
1:00:20 appealing to mystery and like Christians
1:00:23 who affirm a logical contradiction I
1:00:27 hope that's clear to the audience that
1:00:29 question
1:00:30 yeah I think it's clear
1:00:33 um yeah I don't think it I don't think
1:00:35 it is a logical contradiction I don't
1:00:38 think it's affirm to uh or sorry akin to
1:00:42 Christians affirming a logical
1:00:44 contradiction like the Trinity or the
1:00:46 Incarnation that we just brought up only
1:00:48 because somebody asked a question that
1:00:50 seemed like it was related to it
1:00:53 um so again I mean it's kind of like a
1:00:56 broken record here where I'm just gonna
1:00:59 say Well it the burden of proof is on
1:01:02 the person who wants to claim that it is
1:01:05 a logical contradiction to show that
1:01:08 it's actually a contradiction and then
1:01:10 we can respond to it
1:01:12 um I can try to construct a couple ways
1:01:16 in which
1:01:18 um someone might claim that it's a lot a
1:01:20 contradiction uh so you might say
1:01:23 something like well Allah is
1:01:27 um he's not like his Creation in the
1:01:30 sense that uh he can't be ascribed with
1:01:32 these quote-unquote anthropomorphic
1:01:34 seemingly uh human-like qualities of a
1:01:39 hand or uh face or anything like that
1:01:42 and so on the one hand you're saying
1:01:45 that he's he's not like his creation uh
1:01:49 and on the other hand you you're
1:01:51 basically affirming that he has uh human
1:01:53 body parts right which which obviously
1:01:56 I'm not but I'm trying to explain how
1:01:59 maybe they they might see the
1:02:00 contradiction well I'm just going to
1:02:03 deny that when I affirm
1:02:09 that this is anything like a a human
1:02:13 hand or a human body part or anything
1:02:15 like that right so the contradiction
1:02:18 isn't even going to get off the ground
1:02:19 in this case because it's based on uh an
1:02:24 A or not a that I'm not affirming right
1:02:27 so I'm affirming yeah the law but I'm
1:02:29 not and I'm affirming that Allah is is
1:02:33 not like his creation he doesn't have
1:02:34 human body parts or human qualities
1:02:37 but on the other hand it's being said
1:02:39 that I am affirming that but I'm denying
1:02:42 that right so that apparent
1:02:45 contradiction is removed because it's
1:02:47 based on a straw man or a
1:02:48 misrepresentation of what it means when
1:02:51 I'm affirming something like uh the hand
1:02:53 or yet of Allah right but then somebody
1:02:57 could uh say something else right well
1:02:59 they can say something like
1:03:01 well
1:03:03 um yeah the law or uh hand hand in this
1:03:07 case uh Jake you're affirming it on its
1:03:10 apparent meaning and the apparent
1:03:12 meaning is something like a human hand
1:03:15 right
1:03:17 um and at the same time you're denying
1:03:20 it so what what you're affirming for a
1:03:23 law actually should entail this but then
1:03:26 you're denying it so that's a
1:03:29 contradiction because on the one hand
1:03:30 you're you're affirming it and it must
1:03:32 mean X and on the other hand you're
1:03:36 denying
1:03:38 um X even though you actually are
1:03:39 accepting it so now you're left with
1:03:41 another contradiction and I'm just going
1:03:44 to say the same thing that when I affirm
1:03:46 yet Allah or when I firm Allah has a
1:03:50 hand right I'm not affirming that that
1:03:54 means what you're claiming that it means
1:03:56 and therefore doesn't have all these
1:03:59 entailments of it being like such and
1:04:02 such and it looking like a human crit
1:04:05 something in creation or anything like
1:04:07 that right so again it's going to be
1:04:10 claims of contradiction which are based
1:04:13 on uh a misunderstanding of what I'm
1:04:17 actually affirming when I say that I
1:04:19 affirm yet Allah and part of the problem
1:04:22 with this is that it goes into
1:04:25 um a very intricate and uh sort of long
1:04:29 discussion about different theories of
1:04:32 language and what theory of language I'm
1:04:35 holding to when I affirm such and such
1:04:37 idea and so many other complicated
1:04:41 issues that um maybe eventually will do
1:04:44 a whole stream on talking about
1:04:46 different theories of language and what
1:04:48 theory of language
1:04:50 um we're holding to when we affirm such
1:04:52 things like this and why it doesn't
1:04:55 result in a contradiction because of
1:04:57 that
1:04:58 um you know maybe we can go into it a
1:05:00 little bit here but I think that really
1:05:01 needs an entire stream uh to go into a
1:05:05 lot more detail onto some of those
1:05:07 points
1:05:11 respond as well
1:05:13 yeah I have a feeling that like some of
1:05:16 the people who come up with these uh
1:05:19 like weird arguments just don't really
1:05:21 uh there's there's a lot they're missing
1:05:24 in terms of of how how you uh
1:05:27 um show that something's a contradiction
1:05:29 like if I
1:05:31 if I were to speak to a polytheist let's
1:05:32 say somebody believes in I don't know
1:05:34 seven gods or something right and and uh
1:05:38 if I tell him that hey uh
1:05:41 you you you
1:05:43 um your belief is is inconsistent and
1:05:45 there's a contradiction you're holding
1:05:47 to because well God is in fact one
1:05:49 there's one God you're so now you're
1:05:52 saying God is well like you know seven
1:05:54 and not seven or one and not one
1:05:57 I mean uh that would be a very
1:05:59 problematic way of arguing for it I mean
1:06:01 he's his his belief is false it's wrong
1:06:04 because there is only one God but if I
1:06:06 come to him and tell him
1:06:08 that you believe in the contradiction
1:06:10 because you know you believe that there
1:06:12 are seven gods but in fact there is only
1:06:14 one God so it can't be both one and not
1:06:16 one at the same time in the same way
1:06:18 it's a very strange way of arguing
1:06:19 because he doesn't hold to these two
1:06:21 propositions so he's just wrong
1:06:24 or somebody believes that water is not
1:06:26 H2O right tell them you believe in the
1:06:29 contradiction because water is H2O and
1:06:31 it can't be both H2O not H2O that's a
1:06:33 very strange way of arguing you have to
1:06:34 just show that he's wrong similarly
1:06:36 people who um
1:06:38 talk about a certain attributes that
1:06:41 from their perspective uh couldn't be
1:06:44 affirmed of God saying that it's a
1:06:46 contradiction it's going to come in many
1:06:48 forms but I mean this one's a bit
1:06:50 strange that you know if you if you say
1:06:52 because God is transcendent and you have
1:06:54 a specific understanding of transcendent
1:06:55 or because God is perfect and necessary
1:06:58 and you have a specific understanding of
1:07:00 that that I don't share and you say that
1:07:02 it conflicts with that well you're not
1:07:04 really arguing
1:07:06 um by contradiction here it's it's not
1:07:09 what you're doing
1:07:11 um that
1:07:12 fact that it or that that belief that it
1:07:15 contradicts needs to be something that's
1:07:17 shared between us for you to do that and
1:07:19 uh something else
1:07:21 um this whole idea about it you know
1:07:23 it's a hand but it's not a hand
1:07:26 it's exactly the same thing because you
1:07:28 see you you have a specific
1:07:29 understanding of what hand is based on
1:07:31 whatever theory of meaning you hold to
1:07:34 it's it's it's a it's a deep discussion
1:07:37 but uh you have that understanding and
1:07:40 you're saying that well you can't say
1:07:42 that it's a hand but it's not this
1:07:44 because if you do you're saying it's
1:07:46 both this and not this but that's your
1:07:49 understanding of what it is and you're
1:07:51 just skipping over a whole lot of uh um
1:07:54 you know philosophy that's necessary in
1:07:57 order to try to get a basic
1:08:00 understanding of the position you're
1:08:01 supposedly critiquing
1:08:03 uh so uh so yeah this is a very strange
1:08:06 way to look at contradictions to be
1:08:08 honest and uh
1:08:13 I'm just saying just for the audience
1:08:15 yeah I pinned the link
1:08:17 yeah in the chat so anybody who wants to
1:08:20 join
1:08:21 uh primarily we want to focus on this
1:08:23 topic here here which is here which is
1:08:26 about appeal to mystery equals appeal to
1:08:28 contradiction so you know this claim
1:08:31 that Muslims are epistemically
1:08:34 inconsistent when they come to criticize
1:08:36 other beliefs while at the same time
1:08:39 having certain aspects of their beliefs
1:08:41 where they're appealing to some sort of
1:08:43 mystery yeah
1:08:45 um so you know we want people to you
1:08:47 know if you have contentions or whatever
1:08:49 it is uh please uh you know come forward
1:08:53 yeah but going just going back to this
1:08:55 particular question where I'll wait for
1:08:56 people to join us so I think the issue
1:08:59 uh when we talk about appealing to
1:09:03 um
1:09:04 this is a big topic and I think maybe we
1:09:06 have to uh address this talk in uh uh in
1:09:11 in a number maybe on on its own yeah
1:09:15 um but
1:09:17 what different groups within the Islamic
1:09:20 Paradigm look at this is they're saying
1:09:23 is the word does the word okay
1:09:27 thing in a particular meaning that has
1:09:31 to be taken in its literal sense which
1:09:33 would contradict other aspects within
1:09:36 the Quran or the Sunnah yeah or even
1:09:38 some of the arguments rational arguments
1:09:40 for the existence of God is there an
1:09:42 internal contradiction in that sense
1:09:44 now some Scholars might look at the
1:09:46 wording and this is what Jake said and
1:09:48 say based upon their theory of language
1:09:50 say it implicates this particular
1:09:53 literal meaning which would contradict
1:09:55 the you know the nature of Allah or the
1:09:58 fact that Allah does not like creation
1:10:00 therefore it diverts it to a
1:10:02 metaphorical meaning and the metaphor is
1:10:04 accepted
1:10:06 um among some Scholars or a lot of
1:10:08 Scholars that you know certain words
1:10:11 certain attributes of Allah can be used
1:10:13 in a metaphorical sense yeah I think you
1:10:16 mentioned
1:10:18 he said that some of these terms uh that
1:10:22 people point to and say is potentially
1:10:24 anthropomorphic
1:10:26 over whether it can be used in a
1:10:29 metaphorical way anyway but the thing is
1:10:31 is that whether there's a necessity to
1:10:34 indicate to move from a literal to a
1:10:37 metaphor yeah and maybe
1:10:40 I was a bit wordy I'm trying to but let
1:10:43 me give it a big baseball it's like for
1:10:44 example people in the in the Quran it
1:10:46 talks about Mary Melissa Mary how when
1:10:49 she's informed about the birth of Jesus
1:10:51 that she's pregnant sorry that she's
1:10:53 going to be give birth to Jesus that
1:10:54 she's pregnant she said but no man has
1:10:57 touched me yeah the literal word touch
1:11:00 here here can be understood or is
1:11:03 understood as to mean physical touch
1:11:05 with intention
1:11:07 there are some other interpretations of
1:11:10 the word touch as well like touch with
1:11:12 desire Etc yeah but it can mean physical
1:11:15 touch now the hanafi scholars they use
1:11:19 this evidence to say that when it says
1:11:23 that if you touch a woman you break your
1:11:25 wudu they don't mean touching its
1:11:27 literal sense but they mean it in a
1:11:29 metaphorical sense because they're
1:11:30 saying that this word here cannot be
1:11:33 applied in its literal sense with
1:11:34 marimal Islam so it indicates
1:11:38 something else that she's been with the
1:11:40 man Etc yeah uh uh through uh any
1:11:43 intimate relations so it indicates that
1:11:46 so you divert it from its literal to its
1:11:48 metaphor so you do that if you cannot
1:11:52 apply its literal meaning now the issue
1:11:54 here is this is what is the literal
1:11:57 meaning and does it indicate something
1:11:59 which would result in a logical
1:12:01 contradiction or something incompatible
1:12:04 with the belief of Islam some Scholars
1:12:06 say no it doesn't but what they do is
1:12:09 they avoid affirming any aspect for this
1:12:11 tashbeer the only accusation that can be
1:12:14 made is to say no but it is has that
1:12:17 indication it's the entailment of that
1:12:20 but then they have to prove that it's an
1:12:23 entailment and they can't prove it if
1:12:26 you don't accept some of the parameters
1:12:28 of how they use language does that is
1:12:31 that correct about it just a minor
1:12:34 verification on uh I I think it was
1:12:36 enough I mean either him or
1:12:41 yeah maybe but the the point wasn't that
1:12:44 it's it's correct because clearly he um
1:12:47 doesn't see that as correct to do yeah
1:12:49 he's a literal is correct but he sees a
1:12:52 literal not Indica not having to move
1:12:55 from being the literal to the metaphor
1:12:56 because they don't see as indicating
1:12:59 something that's similar to Creation
1:13:03 yeah so what so so what I remember from
1:13:07 the from what he said was that so for
1:13:09 example you compare it to another
1:13:11 Islamic view he he would be that like so
1:13:14 basically it's not kufur as in it's not
1:13:16 it doesn't it's not you uh playing
1:13:19 around with the words of Allah making
1:13:20 things up when you interpret it as power
1:13:23 because the language can like handle
1:13:26 that it's it's within the the scope of
1:13:28 the language uh and it does come in that
1:13:31 form sometimes uh although he disagrees
1:13:33 that that's what's meant by it yeah as
1:13:36 opposed to somebody who just have some
1:13:38 weird funky interpretation of Quran and
1:13:40 and we know those
1:13:43 that's a different story like
1:13:46 so Jake so this is this sounds to me
1:13:49 similar to the discussion about the the
1:13:51 discussion around about the attributes
1:13:53 of Mercy where we would probably say
1:13:55 this is an analogical predication not
1:13:57 univitical yeah meaning it's not
1:14:00 identical so when we say the mercy of
1:14:02 Allah and the mercy of human beings
1:14:03 we're not saying that they're identical
1:14:05 but there's some similarity yeah or
1:14:07 something that we can correspond so when
1:14:09 we tell you the hand of Allah we're not
1:14:11 saying it in a universe univitical way
1:14:14 are we even saying analogical could we
1:14:16 say it could be equivocal
1:14:18 like the hand
1:14:20 as an example
1:14:23 um no I think it's I think it's um
1:14:25 analogical
1:14:27 but I want to give an example So like um
1:14:32 so take something like knowledge which
1:14:34 which most Muslims are going to agree on
1:14:36 that Allah has knowledge well
1:14:40 it seems like everything that we're
1:14:42 familiar with in creation that we
1:14:45 typically that we apply knowledge to
1:14:47 right is usually humans and well so that
1:14:52 means in order to have knowledge you
1:14:54 must have a physical brain so therefore
1:14:57 if we're applying knowledge to Allah you
1:15:01 know he must have a brain well of course
1:15:04 nobody believes that right so the the
1:15:08 basic idea and the basic claim that um
1:15:12 you know simply using a certain word in
1:15:16 in this manner and applying it to
1:15:18 Something in creation and then also
1:15:20 applying it to Allah that that
1:15:22 necessarily then is going to entail that
1:15:25 that aspect in which
1:15:27 that thing creation has in this case
1:15:29 knowledge well it's always associated
1:15:31 with brain so if Allah has knowledge and
1:15:33 he has to have a brain and you know some
1:15:35 atheists will actually use such
1:15:37 arguments right typically yeah and
1:15:41 typically typically theists will laugh
1:15:43 it off like come on dude that's just
1:15:44 stupid right but then in this case some
1:15:48 theists will forget that and and not
1:15:50 want to apply that consistently to our
1:15:54 affirmation of other attributes like
1:15:56 yeah the law but no we don't think it's
1:15:58 it's like this and you know it must be
1:16:01 this particular shape and it looks like
1:16:03 this and all these kind of uh claims
1:16:06 that it's Flesh and Bones and body no we
1:16:08 don't claim any of that right just as we
1:16:10 wouldn't to say that just because Allah
1:16:12 has knowledge that he has a brain
1:16:15 um we wouldn't say we wouldn't say
1:16:17 anything like that so
1:16:19 um so yeah this is something to keep in
1:16:21 mind and also like I said we really have
1:16:24 to do a whole sort of stream on it
1:16:26 because there's a lot of play uh things
1:16:29 in play not just to do with
1:16:32 um theory of language but also uh
1:16:35 ontology you know things like realist
1:16:38 ontology or this concept of real
1:16:40 universals that are instantiated in each
1:16:44 particular instance of things uh versus
1:16:47 an anti-realist approach to it and
1:16:49 saying well no there aren't these
1:16:51 universals that actually exist in the
1:16:54 particular that's all related to this
1:16:57 topic and it's related to our
1:16:59 affirmation of the these attributes and
1:17:02 language all of this is connected right
1:17:05 yeah um but so what what I'm saying is
1:17:07 when a if a Christian or an atheist or a
1:17:12 Muslim who may disagree with uh some of
1:17:15 our or some of my uh approaches to some
1:17:18 of these attributes if they actually
1:17:21 want to really be robust and provide a
1:17:23 proper criticism they they should take
1:17:26 in all of these things into
1:17:28 consideration
1:17:29 don't straw man or misrepresent actually
1:17:32 take into the theory of language being
1:17:34 applied the theory of ontology that's
1:17:37 being used though the way in which these
1:17:40 attributes are being affirmed and how
1:17:42 it's connected to
1:17:44 um the greater Theory that's or the
1:17:47 greater sort of theology that is being
1:17:50 employed and actually try to represent
1:17:52 it accurately and then say what you
1:17:55 think is wrong say well okay I think
1:17:57 that theory of language is actually
1:17:59 incorrect or I think
1:18:02 um that the meaning of the word is
1:18:04 something other than what you're saying
1:18:05 or I think that realism is true and
1:18:08 anti-realism about Universal is false
1:18:11 and it results in this problem you can
1:18:13 do all of those sort of things but you
1:18:15 have to take the whole package together
1:18:17 and then try to say well this is the
1:18:19 problem or this is the contradiction and
1:18:23 I just haven't seen anyone do it at most
1:18:25 of the time it's based on Mis purposeful
1:18:28 misrepresentation or you know genuine
1:18:32 ignorance on the person's part you have
1:18:33 to do a lot more uh studying than that
1:18:36 for example like with the lpt or when I
1:18:38 criticize the um the Christian positions
1:18:41 I read their sources I don't read
1:18:44 sources from Muslims contradicting the
1:18:47 Trinity I read Christian trinitarian
1:18:50 sources I try to give them their Fair
1:18:52 Shake of them explaining what the
1:18:54 problem is then I read all attempted
1:18:57 solutions to the problem and what this
1:18:59 person said and what that person said
1:19:01 and then I try to engage in it this is
1:19:04 if that's how that's how you should be
1:19:07 if you're serious and you want to
1:19:09 critique somebody's position instead of
1:19:11 misrepresenting them or giving sort of
1:19:13 cheap arguments that's the way in which
1:19:15 it should be done and I haven't seen
1:19:17 anyone do it with this um sort of ethidy
1:19:20 affirmationist position on these
1:19:22 attributes I mean I've got you know
1:19:24 plenty of Christian books here like for
1:19:27 example I can I can make the claim about
1:19:29 the lpt because I have a book here from
1:19:33 James Anderson and and called Paradox
1:19:37 and Christian theology in which at the
1:19:40 end of discussing the Trinity he says
1:19:42 this as the debate stands today no
1:19:45 writer from the first century to the
1:19:47 21st century has offered an ex
1:19:50 explication of the doctrine of the
1:19:52 Trinity that is both clearly Orthodox
1:19:55 and free from apparent contradiction it
1:19:58 seems that the careful Theologian
1:20:00 inevitably faces a dilemma that of
1:20:03 embracing either Paradox or heterodoxy
1:20:06 meaning basically heresy right so this
1:20:09 is a statement from a Christian
1:20:11 Theologian today who's saying after 2000
1:20:15 years and he does a survey he explains
1:20:17 what the problem is explains the various
1:20:20 attempted solutions to the problem and
1:20:22 his conclusion is look guys there is no
1:20:24 answer to it it looks like a
1:20:26 contradiction now he doesn't affirm that
1:20:28 it actually is one one and he tries to
1:20:30 justify it later on but I'm just
1:20:32 bringing this up to say I don't see
1:20:34 Christians or atheists or even other
1:20:36 Muslim groups who are contradicting
1:20:38 certain positions or or criticizing
1:20:41 certain positions that I or maybe
1:20:43 abdulrahman or Others May hold with the
1:20:46 same sort of rigor of actually going
1:20:48 into the text trying to understand what
1:20:50 people are saying represent them
1:20:52 accurately and then provide a criticism
1:20:54 there's just not that level of of
1:20:57 criticism and rigor that's it's being
1:21:00 um done from the other side
1:21:02 yeah just like that there's a there's a
1:21:04 good uh book uh by Imam razadi who talks
1:21:08 about
1:21:09 uh the he's about the reason why he
1:21:13 wrote the book was because there were
1:21:15 some he's obviously ashiri himself and
1:21:18 there was an ashiri scholar who was
1:21:19 being quite vociferous against the
1:21:21 humblies of his time and basically
1:21:24 saying that they have committed cover
1:21:26 the other folds of Islam they've
1:21:28 anthropomorphosized Allah and so he
1:21:31 wrote the book Al Faisal tafrica which
1:21:33 is the shortened version of the full
1:21:34 title I think Sherman Jackson has has it
1:21:37 uh translated really good book so he
1:21:40 explains about
1:21:42 uh where you in where a language is
1:21:45 indicated and how you move and why the
1:21:48 authories or the hamblies don't uh move
1:21:52 from literal to metaphorical it's not
1:21:54 because they're affirming that Allah is
1:21:57 like creation but rather they don't see
1:22:00 that there is a wording an indicator to
1:22:03 indicate that that's the only meaning
1:22:05 that you can take from it in its uh in
1:22:08 its apparent meaning yeah so but I think
1:22:12 we need to uh just uh we need to go to
1:22:14 some of our guests so ensure we're going
1:22:16 to bring them on just before I go one
1:22:17 second please
1:22:21 but I want you to bring up Muhammad
1:22:25 hanif's comments of our friend because
1:22:29 he's really the only one in the comments
1:22:31 from um yeah because he's really the
1:22:34 only one in the comments from like the
1:22:35 opposing position and by opposing I mean
1:22:38 like he probably agrees with us on a lot
1:22:39 of what we're saying but I mean about
1:22:40 this point about the attributes he's
1:22:42 probably the only one from those
1:22:44 opposing in the comments that's not
1:22:46 being a clown about it so so
1:22:50 um so so this is a comment about and
1:22:53 he's he's we have a good discussion with
1:22:55 him yesterday and we sort of came to the
1:22:58 common ground
1:22:59 but here so this this is a good
1:23:01 indicator of how
1:23:04 um certain misunderstandings happen so
1:23:06 he's saying the apparent meaning
1:23:09 is a physical organ
1:23:11 of grasping manipulation
1:23:14 and pointing now now this is denied by
1:23:19 everybody so so so nobody says like so
1:23:23 so so if that's what the apparent
1:23:25 meaning is
1:23:27 just really quickly it's really
1:23:29 important point
1:23:30 if the meaning of the word indicate this
1:23:34 and only this as a meaning
1:23:37 yeah
1:23:38 in its literal sense then no scholar
1:23:42 would adopt it
1:23:44 yeah nobody right yeah no one says that
1:23:47 the the God's hand is a physical
1:23:49 organization
1:23:52 yeah so that's what the apparent meaning
1:23:54 is I mean it's not affirmed and then his
1:23:58 second point is you can't say what the
1:24:00 apparent meaning is if it's not the
1:24:01 physical thing well fine because the
1:24:04 apparent meaning for you has to be that
1:24:07 physical thing it has to be what is
1:24:08 observed okay now what is uh you know
1:24:12 that you know using a word that doesn't
1:24:15 indicate the apparent meaning for hanif
1:24:17 would be metaphor so for example I asked
1:24:21 them a question yesterday about
1:24:23 you know the wings of angels
1:24:25 does he see the wing of an Angel as
1:24:28 something that is literal because his
1:24:30 definition of a wing was something
1:24:32 that's uh he gave a proper definition
1:24:34 like you know a feathered organ
1:24:37 something you know hanif with his with
1:24:39 his English uh and and uh and he said
1:24:42 that if it's not that which of course
1:24:45 the wing of the Angel is not then it's
1:24:48 it's metaphor and it's meant as
1:24:50 something that's similar to a literal
1:24:53 Wing in terms of something like its
1:24:55 functions that in in terms of its
1:24:58 entailments or whatever right there's
1:25:00 some notion of similarity but it's not
1:25:02 literal
1:25:03 and then we agreed we came to an
1:25:05 agreement I told them okay well but what
1:25:07 you're using for metaphor here is just
1:25:09 really what the setup here the Italian
1:25:11 means by a literal meaning applying to
1:25:15 both of those so so the dispute here
1:25:17 just take note of what the disputes here
1:25:20 with honey Fizz and we agreed on this
1:25:21 yesterday this view is not really about
1:25:24 the sifa and we're about to be the
1:25:27 dispute is what to call the literal
1:25:30 meaning and what not to call a literal
1:25:32 meaning right right it's not about
1:25:34 whether it's a physical organ or not
1:25:36 nobody disagrees on that and we came to
1:25:38 an agreement yesterday that okay so the
1:25:41 the this position the the this uh
1:25:44 affirmationist uh tiny salafi position
1:25:48 is
1:25:51 agreed with that because it couldn't be
1:25:53 if if if you're saying that second part
1:25:55 that metaphorical part which is for him
1:25:57 is metaphor right uh and then his other
1:26:00 problem with it would be uh you know the
1:26:02 problem composition which is a different
1:26:04 story right but then tashmi goes out the
1:26:06 window right so yeah so basically it's a
1:26:09 semantic problem with the word apparent
1:26:12 whereas you he would some people would
1:26:14 say it's better to use the word metaphor
1:26:16 as opposed to a parent so yeah okay
1:26:20 that's right I want to move on because I
1:26:21 know we've got guests uh and I just want
1:26:23 to quickly read this out so we've got a
1:26:25 uh uh Super Chat uh can you uh can you
1:26:28 do a discussion with atheists who just
1:26:30 atheists have a burden of proof maybe
1:26:32 Aaron raw I don't think Aaron raw wants
1:26:35 to come on but I don't know if he saw
1:26:37 that I don't know if Android phone saw
1:26:39 that but we already had on on our uh
1:26:46 but I don't I don't think
1:26:49 um I don't think he'd come back on
1:26:52 uh We've also got Layman which is our
1:26:54 Super Chat uh assalamu alaikum why are
1:26:57 they coming if you affirm true
1:26:59 contradictions exist like the
1:27:01 Incarnation what would absolute truth
1:27:04 mean then uh and then he says Abdul
1:27:07 where's your coffee
1:27:09 this is Layman he's our he's our biggest
1:27:12 fan you know ever since the yeah I think
1:27:15 it's more rhetorical point I think he's
1:27:17 just saying it's a rhetorical point if
1:27:18 you can't if you're affirming true
1:27:19 contradictions then what does truth mean
1:27:22 so I think there's a problem with us
1:27:24 yeah but but I want to move on quickly
1:27:26 now to uh Eamon uh who he came in sorry
1:27:30 apologies for you waiting for so long uh
1:27:32 salaam forever
1:27:36 [Music]
1:27:38 um just uh I just uh I'm looking forward
1:27:41 to that uh podcast that maybe you guys
1:27:44 can have in the future uh where you can
1:27:46 go into uh the details of what you
1:27:49 entered on here today but uh I was just
1:27:53 thinking about this from
1:27:55 a Muslim Christian Perspective where uh
1:28:00 you know how we say when when you say
1:28:02 that you know Jesus God became man and
1:28:06 that but we we won't go into the details
1:28:09 of what that is that seemed similar to
1:28:12 how uh you know we're not seeing uh you
1:28:16 know yet means this or it doesn't mean
1:28:19 this we just don't know I it kind of
1:28:22 seemed like that where we're saying
1:28:25 um we're not affirming or denying well
1:28:27 we're not even saying what what we're
1:28:29 affirming or denying just like uh they
1:28:32 you know wouldn't affirm or deny
1:28:35 um but how are they similar I mean but
1:28:37 they would have to say that Jesus is uh
1:28:41 you know man fully man they actually say
1:28:43 it quite literally straightforward they
1:28:44 said they don't mean it in some you know
1:28:46 analogical set so I don't see even if
1:28:48 even if we're gonna Grant your point for
1:28:49 the sake of argument about you know it
1:28:51 not having a meaning and thus you know
1:28:53 not knowing what we're saying really
1:28:55 it's still not the same because for them
1:28:57 they quite clearly know what they're
1:28:59 saying when they say God is Man right
1:29:01 okay okay
1:29:04 yeah so I mean at most uh at best I
1:29:08 think what somebody could try to say is
1:29:10 well you guys you guys are appealing to
1:29:12 mystery because you're using words and
1:29:15 you don't actually know the meaning
1:29:16 right but we we kind of went over that
1:29:18 but we could reiterate that again but
1:29:21 what you can't do is you can't say well
1:29:23 you're affirming a contradiction like uh
1:29:26 Jesus being fully God and fully man at
1:29:28 the same time because we're certainly
1:29:29 we're certainly not saying anything
1:29:31 close to them so they're they're
1:29:33 entirely different things the problem
1:29:35 with the Christian position on the
1:29:37 Incarnation the Trinity is not does not
1:29:40 come about and this is something
1:29:42 important that people need to take note
1:29:43 of the contradiction does not arise from
1:29:47 what is not known the contradiction
1:29:49 arises from what they affirm and then
1:29:52 they say we don't know how to resolve
1:29:54 this contradiction which is based on
1:29:56 what I just read out from uh from James
1:29:58 Anderson they affirmed two contradictory
1:30:01 things Jesus is both fully God and fully
1:30:04 man at the same time he knows everything
1:30:06 and is ignorant at the same time they're
1:30:10 literally affirming that and then
1:30:11 there's and then somebody says well
1:30:13 that's a contradiction and then they say
1:30:15 well it's a mystery we're not doing that
1:30:18 at best you can say that we're saying
1:30:21 that we're affirming something without
1:30:22 knowing the meaning but I don't even
1:30:24 think we're doing that but do you see
1:30:26 the difference between those two things
1:30:28 yeah that that makes sense
1:30:30 um
1:30:32 if uh well about you know something like
1:30:35 yadullah are we
1:30:37 um saying or are we
1:30:40 explicitly denying the you know the the
1:30:43 very literal meaning of you know an
1:30:45 organ hand with bones and stuff yeah so
1:30:48 we're seeing it definitely doesn't mean
1:30:49 that yeah we are for example uh Imam
1:30:53 y'all just uh read a quick quote from
1:30:55 him right he says uh and this is in his
1:30:59 um
1:31:00 uh tafsir you can read it he says we
1:31:02 affirm all of those meanings that were
1:31:04 mentioned in the scriptural reports of
1:31:07 the book in the Revelation as understood
1:31:09 through literal affirmation so he says
1:31:12 through literal affirmation but then see
1:31:14 what he means by this and we deny
1:31:16 assimilation so we say that he exalted
1:31:19 is his praise hears the sounds not with
1:31:23 an opening in the ear and not with an
1:31:25 organ like the children of Adam likewise
1:31:27 he sees objects with a vision that is
1:31:30 unlike the vision of the children of
1:31:31 Adam which is by their organs he has two
1:31:34 hands and then he goes on and say and
1:31:37 these are not appendages right but his
1:31:40 hands are outstretched with his favors
1:31:42 upon his creatures and then he says goes
1:31:45 on to say further
1:31:47 um these are not made of Flesh or blood
1:31:50 so he he affirms them and says it's a
1:31:52 literal affirmation so notice two things
1:31:55 and this is to show that this is not
1:31:57 just some theory of language that was
1:31:59 adopted later on in Imam attabadi's mind
1:32:03 he's saying we're affirming it on the
1:32:05 literal meaning
1:32:07 but then at the same time denying
1:32:10 appendages and Flesh and Blood and Bones
1:32:13 and all of that
1:32:14 right so it's very clear we everyone
1:32:17 denies whether you say it's a literal
1:32:19 meaning or you you affirm it but you say
1:32:22 that it's not literal nobody is saying
1:32:24 that it is anything like a Flesh and
1:32:26 Blood and Bones and anything like
1:32:28 creation
1:32:29 okay okay
1:32:31 guys
1:32:34 any final questions I say is that been
1:32:36 all sorted for you Eamon yeah
1:32:38 alhamdulillah um
1:32:40 yeah there's a very important
1:32:42 distinction and you'll hear it in the
1:32:44 beginning of the stream as well between
1:32:45 uh uh um I think Jake mentioned this
1:32:49 right
1:32:50 an appeal to mystery in the sense that
1:32:52 there is something that you don't know
1:32:55 the meaning of right or incomplete
1:32:57 information versus uh what seems to be a
1:33:01 contradiction that you're appealing to
1:33:04 mystery for the sake of getting out of
1:33:06 right and also the point about as well
1:33:09 like forget about contradictions and
1:33:11 Mysteries right so the points about you
1:33:12 know God uh having a hand in a way that
1:33:15 people picture in this way like a
1:33:18 physical way and and then they talk
1:33:20 about this
1:33:21 and relating that to what you said about
1:33:24 uh God being you know incarnating into
1:33:28 man for Christians just that point alone
1:33:31 I mean they affirm yeah it's man like
1:33:34 just as you know you would think a
1:33:36 normal man is right they're explicitly
1:33:38 saying that it must be a man like that
1:33:41 it's not it's not that it's a it's a man
1:33:43 and some you know un understood way if
1:33:45 those who you know uh accuse the timing
1:33:48 and position of being unintelligible or
1:33:50 in a way that's you know uh analogous no
1:33:52 it's man you know he must be fully man
1:33:54 so there's really uh no comparison
1:34:01 foreign sorry
1:34:11 okay uh assalamu alaikum brother
1:34:14 Muhammad
1:34:19 Muhammad
1:34:23 you there bro
1:34:26 I can't hear anything from him
1:34:28 uh neither can I
1:34:32 can hear me
1:34:34 yeah I can hear you a bit quiet though
1:34:36 okay let me see if I can turn that off
1:34:39 just one second
1:34:40 that's a bit better yeah is it better
1:34:43 yeah I'm doing that yeah someone like
1:34:46 them hurt you guys are good man good
1:34:49 all right
1:34:51 what's your comment or question uh no no
1:34:54 problem uh well thank you for for having
1:34:56 me on
1:34:57 um so I've been listening to
1:35:00 um what you guys were saying regarding
1:35:01 the safaricon the other Allah
1:35:05 and I do affirm the salafi position like
1:35:08 I don't
1:35:10 um like I would take
1:35:12 um I would accept certain metaphors in
1:35:14 terms of these thought of Allah but
1:35:16 generally speaking like the shin of
1:35:18 Allah or the hand of Allah I do
1:35:21 um affirm them um in the not in the
1:35:24 tashbihi way but in a literal sense
1:35:28 um but I guess the problem for me arises
1:35:30 when I actually begin to think about it
1:35:33 philosophically
1:35:34 [Music]
1:35:36 you mentioned an example earlier about
1:35:38 comparing Angels like the wings of
1:35:41 angels and the wings of
1:35:43 creatures that we know and I just find
1:35:46 that a little bit of a problematic
1:35:48 example because at the end of the day an
1:35:50 angel is not a Transcendent entity like
1:35:53 Allah so it you could still say that it
1:35:57 does have a physical wing but the wing
1:36:00 is not similar to the wings of the
1:36:03 creatures that we are familiar with and
1:36:05 likewise you know a lot of people cite
1:36:07 examples like okay is does Allah have a
1:36:10 life yes do you have a life yes are they
1:36:13 similar no but that's also problematic
1:36:16 because at the end of the day life and
1:36:18 Consciousness is a metaphysical concept
1:36:20 but when we start speaking of things
1:36:22 like a hand or a shin
1:36:24 um they have literal physical meanings
1:36:27 and we have no other conception of
1:36:30 understanding those ideas so it appears
1:36:34 to be a contradiction to me to say that
1:36:36 I affirm that Allah has a hand but it's
1:36:39 not like our hand because that is a
1:36:41 contradiction that is to say Allah has a
1:36:45 physical
1:36:46 um attribute or physical object or
1:36:49 whatever you want to call it but he does
1:36:51 not at the same time
1:36:52 do you understand myself I mean yeah if
1:36:54 you said that it would be a
1:36:56 contradiction based on what you just
1:36:57 said so so you're saying that hand must
1:37:01 be physical so if you in the same breath
1:37:03 said that God has a hand but it's not
1:37:06 physical
1:37:07 there will be a serious inconsistency
1:37:08 there yeah
1:37:10 but that's not the point so assume I'm
1:37:13 wrong the way I'm using hand is wrong
1:37:14 right so that's just it's meaningless
1:37:16 right
1:37:17 still not a contradiction because I
1:37:19 don't affirm what you're saying about
1:37:20 what the meaning of a hand must be even
1:37:22 even if you're right
1:37:25 still not a contradiction for me so
1:37:27 you're saying the the word hand is
1:37:29 meaningless
1:37:30 look I'm just making the first point I'm
1:37:32 not saying that I'm saying assume it is
1:37:34 for the sake of argument I assume it's
1:37:35 meaningless
1:37:37 for the sake of argument I'm trying to
1:37:39 make the point and explain to you that
1:37:41 just because the person is wrong it
1:37:43 doesn't mean
1:37:44 that
1:37:45 their position is contradictory right so
1:37:47 wrong I can be wrong in what I'm saying
1:37:49 about a hand not necessarily being
1:37:52 physical that doesn't mean that my
1:37:54 position is inconsistent
1:37:58 do you understand that point
1:38:00 I'm just trying to understand what
1:38:02 you're saying so a contradiction is
1:38:04 affirming a proposition is is affirming
1:38:07 a proposition and its negation at the
1:38:09 same time in the same way yep what are
1:38:12 those two propositions yeah those two
1:38:14 propositions so let's say
1:38:15 um let's use the hand example to say
1:38:18 Allah has a hand and of course I know
1:38:20 like obviously as Muslims we don't say
1:38:22 this right but I'm saying um
1:38:25 if you analyze the semantics or the
1:38:27 language when you say Allah has a hand
1:38:29 hand it's clearly defined as a physical
1:38:31 object it cannot mean any other thing a
1:38:34 lot of us to make it easy for you the
1:38:36 contradiction would be a hand is
1:38:38 physical and not physical at the same
1:38:40 time in the same way exactly yeah yeah
1:38:41 exactly
1:38:43 it's not a contradiction for other
1:38:45 things like life or knowledge because
1:38:48 those are non-physical they're
1:38:50 metaphysical properties we'll get to
1:38:52 that we'll get to that yeah but firstly
1:38:54 you need to understand that I need to
1:38:56 affirm both of those propositions for my
1:39:00 position to have a contradiction with it
1:39:01 do you get that part yeah yeah and I
1:39:03 don't affirm how a musicians cannot
1:39:05 affirm that yeah that's a different
1:39:07 question so I'm saying assume I'm wrong
1:39:10 about not affirming that the literal
1:39:13 meaning of hand entails physicality
1:39:15 right it necessitates physicality assume
1:39:17 I'm wrong about that right that's a
1:39:20 different point unless I affirm that
1:39:23 though
1:39:24 my position is not a contradiction
1:39:26 because I don't affirm a proposition and
1:39:28 it's negation my position can be wrong
1:39:31 yeah but it's not necessarily a
1:39:32 contradiction do you get that part yeah
1:39:34 I get that I get that I'm just trying to
1:39:36 insist on the fact that there it's
1:39:38 impossible yeah but that's a different
1:39:40 point that's a different point yeah so
1:39:41 insisting on the fact that the word hand
1:39:44 entails physicality is a different point
1:39:47 from saying that a person who says that
1:39:49 it doesn't is committing a contradiction
1:39:51 so just you just separate between those
1:39:53 two yeah yeah now to the point of like
1:39:55 the reason I'm trying to insist on that
1:39:57 is because I feel like if um it then you
1:40:00 can't distinguish between like an ashari
1:40:02 and an f30 perspective like it all
1:40:04 collapses into one in the same thing do
1:40:07 you see what I'm saying because if what
1:40:09 do you mean okay so
1:40:11 if you're saying I mean I mean what what
1:40:12 is what is the point that if we deny
1:40:15 uh you know we would lose the
1:40:17 distinction between the athletes
1:40:19 Okay so
1:40:22 actually say that and correct me if I'm
1:40:25 wrong or some of them are these uh
1:40:26 maturities as well is that these are
1:40:29 metaphors they are you know obviously
1:40:31 not literal
1:40:33 hands or shins or any of that and the
1:40:35 athletes say the same thing but the
1:40:37 distinguishment is maybe the asharis
1:40:39 would take it a step further and just
1:40:41 say okay that's a made-up metaphor of
1:40:43 power
1:40:45 but maybe the athletes just stop and and
1:40:48 just say that that's just a metaphor
1:40:50 period because we do not affirm that
1:40:53 it's a physical object do you understand
1:40:55 yeah those would be it's not about
1:40:57 physical objects it's not forget
1:40:59 physical object because nobody affirms I
1:41:01 know nobody affirms so because the
1:41:05 distinction would be that it has to mean
1:41:07 that you consider it a metaphor that's
1:41:08 what I'm saying okay so the the point is
1:41:10 you're making a distinction between
1:41:12 mufauluda who basically loots of weed of
1:41:16 the meaning they say they don't know
1:41:17 what the meaning is you know and they
1:41:19 can negate what it is and say well then
1:41:22 what it actually is is something that is
1:41:24 unknown and between the asharis who do
1:41:25 that will and say it is this specific
1:41:28 thing like let's say power I don't know
1:41:29 how that's related to anything you said
1:41:30 but let me answer your question because
1:41:32 sure because that first point is clear
1:41:34 right that it's not a contradiction
1:41:35 because I don't affirm those two
1:41:36 propositions that point is clear right
1:41:38 yeah that's clear okay now the second
1:41:40 point that it uh uh you're saying about
1:41:43 the angel right how the example is
1:41:46 Meaningful because I'm comparing it to
1:41:47 an angel an angel is a created thing
1:41:50 that can be physical yeah the point of
1:41:53 the example wasn't to say that God's
1:41:57 likeness is that of an angels the point
1:42:00 was
1:42:01 to clarify what it is like to
1:42:04 analogically predicate something
1:42:06 to make analogical predication or
1:42:10 metaphorical according to what brother
1:42:12 hanif was saying about what I was saying
1:42:14 so the point was that you can say
1:42:18 something
1:42:20 like the angel has a wing and the word
1:42:23 Wing here doesn't have to entail certain
1:42:27 aspects that some people regard or maybe
1:42:30 in you know certain as part of the
1:42:33 custom it is it is it is understood as
1:42:35 something that must have feathers right
1:42:38 so it doesn't have to have that thing
1:42:40 that you regard as an essential
1:42:43 attribute of the fact yeah but it's
1:42:45 still like a platonic Queen sense right
1:42:48 what it's like a platonic idea of a wink
1:42:51 like when you believe angels have wings
1:42:54 I'm sorry do you believe angels have
1:42:56 wings yes
1:42:58 do you believe that they are like the
1:43:00 wings of birds and have feathers it
1:43:02 depends what you mean by light if they
1:43:04 have feathers then I don't know if they
1:43:06 have feathers or not I mean I would
1:43:07 imagine that's the point so what is it
1:43:09 that they help but it's yeah one second
1:43:11 one second Muhammad one second what is
1:43:13 it that the angels have that makes your
1:43:17 attribution of you know wingness to them
1:43:20 correct so it's an attachment to their
1:43:23 body that allows them to fly
1:43:25 okay so it's what are their bodies like
1:43:28 what what
1:43:29 but we know that angels are physical
1:43:31 beings wait okay so you don't know you
1:43:34 so so you don't know what
1:43:37 these words entail no I don't have some
1:43:41 sense of analogy between what is
1:43:44 observable and what is unobservable
1:43:46 about angels so you're saying that there
1:43:49 is something about the wing of an angel
1:43:52 that is analogous too although not
1:43:55 necessarily in any way
1:43:59 where I disagree is it's a false analogy
1:44:02 because at the end of the day there is a
1:44:04 level of similarity between the the
1:44:05 wings of an angel I'm not saying there
1:44:07 is a greater thing I'm not saying there
1:44:09 isn't it I'm saying that that
1:44:10 similarities can be expressed in many
1:44:12 different ways for example what brother
1:44:14 hanif was saying yesterday is that it
1:44:15 has something that gives allows it like
1:44:18 the function of doing these tasks that
1:44:21 Allah gave it
1:44:22 that like will be ascending and
1:44:24 descending for example now what that is
1:44:26 yeah and that's Reliant no you can
1:44:30 picture because at the end of the day
1:44:31 it's related to
1:44:36 this is a very physical idea that we can
1:44:39 grasp well when it comes can you tell me
1:44:41 what an angel looks like
1:44:43 that has nothing to do with the idea
1:44:45 yeah it does because I'm saying you
1:44:46 can't picture in the sense that you
1:44:47 don't know what an angel looks like yet
1:44:48 you understand what these words mean no
1:44:50 I I don't know what the wink looks like
1:44:52 but I understand it has
1:44:54 an object on its body that allows it to
1:44:57 ascend and descend so you don't you
1:45:00 don't know what physicality for an angel
1:45:02 really means like so if you talk about
1:45:04 dimensions for example is an angel
1:45:06 necessarily three-dimensional
1:45:09 I mean the prophet is used to see jibril
1:45:12 Islam physically so yeah that's
1:45:14 regardless that's the point that's
1:45:15 that's the capability Allah gave him
1:45:16 that's not the point yes so Angels do
1:45:18 manifest physically
1:45:20 that's that's not the problem is right
1:45:22 now you're going to be equivocating on
1:45:24 physically here because you don't even
1:45:25 know what that means when it comes for
1:45:27 an aint to an angel so for example an
1:45:29 angel can be right in front of you here
1:45:30 right now with us yet we have no means
1:45:33 of detecting it yes that's true are you
1:45:36 certain that an angel is this
1:45:38 three-dimensional being that is I don't
1:45:40 know physical in the sense that it's
1:45:41 reducible to Adam atoms and particles or
1:45:44 that it's light in the city
1:45:46 let me finish my sentences and then I'll
1:45:49 let you finish yours no because
1:45:51 you understand that it has to be light
1:45:54 in the same way
1:45:55 we experienced light or that it is
1:45:57 physical in the sense that it's maybe
1:45:59 reducible to atoms and particles is any
1:46:01 of that necessary the answer has to be
1:46:03 no because you don't know yet you
1:46:05 understand that there's some kind of
1:46:07 analogy between things that fly having
1:46:11 wings and an angel having wings
1:46:15 okay so you don't agree with me so
1:46:18 because there is an analogy that an
1:46:19 angel can Ascend and descend
1:46:22 then it has wings in that sense just
1:46:24 like created things that we can observe
1:46:26 in our physical reality
1:46:28 if it's in that sense you're gonna have
1:46:30 to explain to me in what sense you mean
1:46:33 okay so do you agree with me that if an
1:46:35 angel has wings then we understand that
1:46:37 it has wings by virtue that it can fly
1:46:39 or Ascend and descent or it's just
1:46:41 winged like this yeah in a manner that
1:46:43 we don't know how an angel
1:46:46 I don't know how I don't because that's
1:46:49 the point man yeah I know it does I know
1:46:51 it does by virtue of its wings do you
1:46:54 see what yeah so that so so Muhammad
1:46:55 that is my point what I'm saying is you
1:46:58 are able to affirm these things of the
1:46:59 Angel like ascending and descending so
1:47:02 having any knowledge or making any
1:47:04 claims about the how-ness or the actual
1:47:07 reality of how this occurs so how in the
1:47:10 world are you going to say that
1:47:13 necessarily it must entail this visible
1:47:16 aspect of a thing I'm seeing you can't
1:47:18 say that because you understand it
1:47:20 without necessarily applying a mental
1:47:23 image to it that oh it must look like
1:47:25 this in order for me to say this word
1:47:27 about it you don't think you're
1:47:28 concentrating too much on the fact that
1:47:30 I can't physically see an angel but
1:47:32 please hear me out okay because I listen
1:47:34 to you but you don't listen sufficiently
1:47:36 to me but what I'm saying is
1:47:39 yeah I can't see an angel I don't know
1:47:43 if it's a three-dimensional creature I
1:47:44 don't know any of that but it's
1:47:46 irrelevant because I know that they can
1:47:48 physically Ascend and descend now what
1:47:51 do you mean by physically
1:47:53 within our universe even though I can't
1:47:55 what do you mean physical what is what
1:47:57 is what is what is a physical object
1:47:59 right
1:48:00 um by physically I mean within the
1:48:02 universe even like even if I can't see
1:48:04 them
1:48:05 than within our universe not
1:48:08 metaphysically not outside the universe
1:48:11 So Physical is a description of where
1:48:13 something is not what something is made
1:48:15 of
1:48:17 well then by that definition everybody
1:48:18 agrees that God is Not physical even as
1:48:21 per your accusations wouldn't make sense
1:48:22 because God is not in the in in the
1:48:24 universe God is Not physical yes
1:48:30 you're saying
1:48:32 Muhammad listen you are saying that what
1:48:34 it means is
1:48:35 to be in the universe
1:48:39 the reason the reason why I disagree
1:48:41 with that analogy is because at the end
1:48:44 of the day there is
1:48:46 um there is an analogous nature between
1:48:49 the Ascension and dissension of an Angel
1:48:51 and our created creatures that we are
1:48:53 familiar with now when it comes to a
1:48:56 hand it is impossible to even conceive
1:48:59 of any analogy whatsoever so so to
1:49:02 that's your claim that you're uncapable
1:49:04 of Defending right now because I'm
1:49:06 asking you questions I'm asking so this
1:49:08 question let's let's look at this
1:49:10 example right now the question I just
1:49:11 asked of what it means for something to
1:49:13 be physical you said it means for it to
1:49:16 be within the universe is that your
1:49:17 answer yes
1:49:19 well by that definition your your say so
1:49:22 you you telling let's say uh somebody
1:49:25 who affirms attributes in a specific way
1:49:27 that for them God would be physical is
1:49:29 meaningless because for them God is not
1:49:31 in the universe so any any uh accusation
1:49:35 of physicality doesn't make sense as per
1:49:37 your definition of what no I'm not
1:49:38 accusing them of physicality I'm I'm
1:49:40 saying that it's incoherent
1:49:43 no that's that's not the point
1:49:46 you're saying I'm saying it's incoherent
1:49:49 there's a difference
1:49:50 okay so so so so so so so so right now
1:49:54 just by the fact that something is
1:49:56 outside of the universe it cannot be
1:49:58 physical yes
1:50:00 regardless of anything else about its
1:50:03 actual like your ontology and nature now
1:50:05 yeah so what's your problem then yeah
1:50:08 when I'm my problem is like if I so if
1:50:11 something has a hand and it's outside of
1:50:13 the universe it's not a physical Hand by
1:50:15 your definition
1:50:16 then the word hand
1:50:19 um ceases to have meaning because that
1:50:21 doesn't make sense because right now you
1:50:23 have a different understanding of what
1:50:24 physical is that you're sneaking in here
1:50:26 you're you're basically saying that a
1:50:28 hand has to have a specific makeup and
1:50:30 that's what you mean by physicality not
1:50:33 the fact that it is located in a
1:50:34 specific place and not in another I mean
1:50:37 that doesn't make sense so if it's if if
1:50:40 if you're sticking to your definition
1:50:41 that physicality is basically that which
1:50:46 that that is which within the universe
1:50:48 then a hand outside of the universe is
1:50:51 not physical so
1:50:53 um I think it's your problem to have a
1:50:55 hand outside the Universe
1:50:57 um
1:50:59 because anything outside the set of the
1:51:02 universe must be different
1:51:05 yeah but then right now you're not just
1:51:07 defining physicality by being inside the
1:51:09 universe you're saying there's a feature
1:51:12 of things inside the universe that is
1:51:14 not just limited to it being inside the
1:51:17 universe and that feature cannot apply
1:51:19 to things outside the universe now what
1:51:21 is that feature so so right now you
1:51:22 can't use this whole thing about it
1:51:24 being in the universe anymore that just
1:51:25 doesn't make sense it doesn't apply
1:51:27 because just by definition something
1:51:28 being outside of it is automatically not
1:51:30 physical so your hand objection doesn't
1:51:32 work so you mean something else
1:51:34 okay like I I'm def I'm doing my best to
1:51:37 understand what you mean brother so you
1:51:39 might have to work a little bit with me
1:51:40 here um
1:51:42 we as human beings we we created words
1:51:45 and we have definitions of them so what
1:51:47 I mean by physical and within the
1:51:49 universe is like when we say hand hand
1:51:51 has a very explicit meaning in terms of
1:51:54 what we perceive
1:51:55 so by definition if anything outside the
1:51:58 universe has a hand and it sees us to be
1:52:00 a hand because the definition doesn't
1:52:03 apply anymore do you see what I mean
1:52:05 what's the definition
1:52:07 well I mean it's gonna obviously be very
1:52:10 hard to to pinpoint but there's a
1:52:12 general sentiment of what a hand is it's
1:52:15 you know an attachment to an arm that
1:52:17 you can grip and you can
1:52:20 um you know just do normal functions
1:52:22 with so when the angel flies out of the
1:52:24 universe does it cease to be physical
1:52:32 I mean I want to say yes
1:52:36 I want to say yes but how is that
1:52:37 relevant how is it relevant to just
1:52:40 displaying how incoherent no disrespect
1:52:43 your definition of physical is it's it's
1:52:46 not incoherent it's just unhelpful
1:52:48 you're just defining physical by
1:52:50 location it's just depending on whether
1:52:52 it's in the universe maybe this point
1:52:55 might help it's like for example the
1:52:57 angel of death
1:52:58 Angel of Death takes the souls of people
1:53:02 and there are multiple people keeps the
1:53:04 world who are going to be dying it
1:53:06 simultaneously
1:53:08 so how is it the angel of death is
1:53:10 physical and he's able to be temporal
1:53:13 temporal and spatially located at
1:53:16 multiple positions at the same time we
1:53:18 don't know
1:53:19 exactly it's a mystery because when we
1:53:22 talk about physicality in the sense of
1:53:24 angels it is something which is beyond
1:53:27 our comprehension and I think that's the
1:53:28 point that abdulrahman is trying to say
1:53:30 so when we say that it is a physical
1:53:32 being we're saying with a physical being
1:53:35 that is literally beyond our ability to
1:53:37 comprehend so when we apply terms like
1:53:40 wings to a physical being which is
1:53:42 beyond our comprehension it would by
1:53:45 default or entailment be something that
1:53:47 we wouldn't be able to comprehend either
1:53:49 in in a univitical way and the only
1:53:53 possible way that you could maybe
1:53:54 comprehend it is in terms of an
1:53:58 attribute of function
1:54:00 [Music]
1:54:04 yeah so I'm definitely
1:54:07 um you know doing this on the on the on
1:54:09 the fly so maybe my definitions are
1:54:11 problematic and maybe they are
1:54:13 um in a certain sense internally
1:54:15 um inconsistent I you know like I'm not
1:54:18 I'm not saying like I have some Grand
1:54:19 philosophical Theory or whatever but the
1:54:22 idea I'm trying to say is like even if
1:54:24 there is even if um you know something
1:54:27 is beyond the universe
1:54:29 that is incomparable to Allah because
1:54:31 the heaven is beyond the universe you
1:54:33 know um there's there's there's
1:54:36 an entire world beyond the universe but
1:54:39 that doesn't automatically
1:54:41 um put it on the same metaphysical level
1:54:43 as Allah so even if we do say I we're
1:54:46 all in agreement about that yeah yeah so
1:54:48 so that's what I'm appealing to is that
1:54:50 yes even if I do accept which I do that
1:54:53 Angels outside the universe have wings
1:54:55 there is still a level of similarity
1:54:58 between a wing outside the universe and
1:55:01 a wink inside the universe in the sense
1:55:03 that Allah could create things outside
1:55:05 the universe that are similar but Allah
1:55:08 is fundamentally dissimilar so so I
1:55:13 don't see how when we see yeah yeah so
1:55:15 look so the idea is the idea is is not
1:55:19 about the level of similarity or
1:55:21 dissimilarity here that's not the point
1:55:23 about the Angels the point that you're
1:55:25 supposed to understand from this is that
1:55:27 you are able to comprehend
1:55:30 what you predicate of angels despite you
1:55:34 having no clue
1:55:37 what necessary and sufficient conditions
1:55:39 must in reality apply in order for a
1:55:43 wing to be called a wing you don't know
1:55:44 you're not giving answers but then you
1:55:45 still understand what it means there's
1:55:48 some notion of similarity whether that's
1:55:50 it honestly disagree whatever what I
1:55:53 what I feel like is
1:55:55 um I could tell you explicitly what I
1:55:56 feel is the property that
1:55:58 um
1:55:59 that that uh Angels possess that makes
1:56:02 them have wings it's a property of
1:56:03 Ascension and dissension
1:56:05 okay
1:56:06 even Ascension Ascension the same thing
1:56:09 is going to apply however you're just
1:56:10 gonna be you know kicking the can down
1:56:12 the road the point is that you have no
1:56:15 idea of the kaifia of either the wing or
1:56:19 Ascension detention yet you predicate
1:56:22 these terms intelligently yes the angel
1:56:24 it's the fact that there is an Ascension
1:56:27 and dissension that makes it have a wink
1:56:31 there are things that Ascend and descend
1:56:33 that don't have wings right
1:56:36 yeah your soul yeah but but uh we don't
1:56:40 like Allah never told us that it has
1:56:42 wings in the first place yeah but there
1:56:44 are plenty of the point is any sort of
1:56:46 attribute or property that you can
1:56:49 ascribe that's that's the point of what
1:56:51 we're trying to say about uh the
1:56:53 ontology and the theory of language
1:56:55 that's being represented we reject that
1:56:58 there's this idea that there's this
1:57:00 shared property in my hand and Allah
1:57:03 without his hand we reject that yeah
1:57:06 yeah and I reject that too that's I mean
1:57:09 that's what I'm saying it's going to be
1:57:10 the same thing for any other attribute
1:57:12 it's going to be the same thing for any
1:57:14 other attribute what is a Allah's
1:57:16 knowledge
1:57:18 okay uh just a quick question if I if I
1:57:21 display Mercy
1:57:23 to somebody or something and Allah we
1:57:27 understand Allah is merciful can we say
1:57:28 that there is an infinitely small extent
1:57:31 to which my Mercy is similar to Allah's
1:57:34 Mercy well that's what I'm asking you
1:57:35 that's what I was asking with the
1:57:37 knowledge yeah well what I would say is
1:57:39 and I don't know if it's islamically
1:57:40 permissible to say this or not so you'd
1:57:42 have to probably let me know but I would
1:57:44 say yes there is a similarity in a sense
1:57:47 obviously my Mercy is nothing like
1:57:50 Allah's Mercy but the the two properties
1:57:55 um are similar yes yes so then you don't
1:57:57 have a problem with Tesh B you don't
1:57:59 have a problem with there being a level
1:58:01 of similarity between an attribute that
1:58:03 Allah
1:58:06 abstract ideas I don't have a problem
1:58:11 hand and foot and okay so you have you
1:58:14 don't have a problem with similarity you
1:58:17 have a problem with a specific type of
1:58:19 similarity which is and the interest of
1:58:22 in in the instance of yeb Allah for
1:58:24 example you think that that necessitates
1:58:27 a certain type of similarity which is
1:58:30 physicality and that is unacceptable
1:58:33 that's basically your claim yep yeah
1:58:35 well we're just denying that that's the
1:58:37 case
1:58:39 yeah I feel like uh and by the way an
1:58:42 important point to make about what
1:58:43 Jake's saying right now is that I mean
1:58:45 so many of like the self-proclaimed
1:58:48 rationalists who are really incapable of
1:58:51 dissecting these different positions and
1:58:53 actually analyzing them see what you're
1:58:55 saying right now Muhammad Islam uh so
1:58:58 many of those of of these schools that
1:59:00 you know uh some of the brothers that
1:59:02 we've been involved with see what you're
1:59:04 saying right now just as much
1:59:07 uh in terms of whatever will be as as as
1:59:10 predicating hand of God is in the sense
1:59:12 that they only focus on the whole hand
1:59:15 thing with the salafi because it just
1:59:16 sounds bad and right they just they just
1:59:18 do that but if they're genuine then
1:59:21 there's really no difference between
1:59:22 that and between you saying that there
1:59:26 is a notion of similarity between your
1:59:30 knowledge or your mercy and God's
1:59:32 knowledge or Gods because they would
1:59:33 attack the saint they would attack you
1:59:35 for the same reason it's just one
1:59:37 attribute instead of another yeah and
1:59:39 they actually won't do that explicitly
1:59:41 because
1:59:43 they would attack you for claim the
1:59:46 people that have a problem with their
1:59:47 being a supposed similarity between yeah
1:59:50 the law and some type of hand in
1:59:52 creation they're going if a person is
1:59:55 consistent they're going to attack you
1:59:57 for saying that there's a similarity
2:00:00 between the mercy of Allah and mercy and
2:00:03 creation yeah that's what they do those
2:00:04 who are actually consistent and I don't
2:00:07 have to name names but that that's their
2:00:10 position to the point where it becomes a
2:00:12 radical sort of agnosticism about God
2:00:15 now forget about yeah the law you can't
2:00:17 say that Allah has knowledge you can't
2:00:19 say that he has power why because
2:00:21 there's power and knowledge and creation
2:00:23 that's what it resorts to and it's just
2:00:25 a spiral all the way down
2:00:28 there is a similarity between our mercy
2:00:30 and Allah
2:00:33 yeah in terms in terms of in terms of
2:00:36 the meaning of the two words there's a
2:00:38 similarity yeah but in terms of the
2:00:41 meaning of hand there is no similarity
2:00:43 no no no no wait wait see just as you
2:00:46 said Muhammad Assam that there can be
2:00:48 this uh you know very
2:00:51 a tiny notion of similarity that just
2:00:54 allows for you to say you have mercy and
2:00:56 God has Mercy yet they're nothing alike
2:00:58 yeah exactly the same thing could be
2:01:00 said of hands no no I I didn't say
2:01:02 they're nothing alike I mean yeah Allah
2:01:04 shows Mercy to somebody like on oh he
2:01:08 said they were like he said they were
2:01:09 like in in small portion yeah okay
2:01:15 if if that one doesn't apply to me why
2:01:18 why would saying the same thing about
2:01:20 handling I would say is remember
2:01:21 nobody's saying anything about
2:01:23 physicality or you know it it looking in
2:01:27 any specific way or any of that stuff
2:01:29 because even those words they're they're
2:01:31 quite vague yeah especially in a
2:01:33 metaphysical discussion so if you can
2:01:35 say that and you don't fall into this B
2:01:37 yeah in the same breath you want to
2:01:39 understand
2:01:41 and maybe maybe I I
2:01:44 misunderstood touch B but um I'm kind of
2:01:47 understanding test b in a very like uh
2:01:50 the touch see me kind of way like if you
2:01:53 make yeah but that's the thing not
2:01:55 everybody does like you have the people
2:01:57 who believe in a radical notion of
2:01:59 divine Simplicity where they will say if
2:02:01 you say that Allah has any sifat
2:02:05 whatsoever right then you are in some
2:02:08 sense you are
2:02:10 um assimilating him to creation and then
2:02:13 you have a step down from that the the
2:02:16 people who affirm certain attributes
2:02:18 like power knowledge will Etc right and
2:02:23 they don't think that that's test B but
2:02:24 then they will say well if you affirm uh
2:02:27 yed then this is Tesh B yeah and then
2:02:29 you have the the the the next Group
2:02:31 which says well you can affirm that but
2:02:33 you can't affirm uh addition or you can
2:02:36 affirm so and so on it's just constantly
2:02:39 down the hill each person has a
2:02:42 different definition of teshby where
2:02:44 they say oh well we allow all the way
2:02:47 from we don't allow any similarity
2:02:49 whatsoever to oh we allow in this case
2:02:52 but not in others and constantly going
2:02:54 down yeah so that's reality everybody
2:02:57 accuses each other right no and that's a
2:03:00 good point but um do you believe that
2:03:02 the correct position is that there is a
2:03:04 line to be drawn somewhere someplace or
2:03:07 that
2:03:08 um you just
2:03:09 uh yes and say that is acceptable across
2:03:14 the board
2:03:15 no so so in our position so our position
2:03:18 is that the words that apply have have a
2:03:21 similar meaning otherwise we wouldn't
2:03:23 understand at all what's going on but
2:03:26 like you said it's going to be
2:03:28 infinitesimal like the point and this is
2:03:30 where people get confused because they
2:03:32 think well you're comparing physical
2:03:33 Creations it's just to get you to
2:03:35 understand something like the example
2:03:37 that abdulrahman is is using about the
2:03:40 wings of an Angel there's a radical
2:03:42 difference between that and uh wings of
2:03:46 a bird for example so what we would say
2:03:48 is Allah because he is greater than that
2:03:52 it's going to be infinitely more the gap
2:03:55 between any word that we apply to him
2:03:57 and things in creation that's all that
2:04:00 it's meant to establish that the same
2:04:02 way that you can use the same word for
2:04:05 two things in creation and yet as you
2:04:07 saw here and I'm not saying it as
2:04:09 anything bad but sometimes it's
2:04:11 generally hard to struggle to say well I
2:04:14 use the same word for this thing and I
2:04:17 use the same word for this thing but
2:04:18 then when you actually think about it
2:04:20 it's like well what do they actually
2:04:21 have in common some things that you use
2:04:24 the same word for what they actually
2:04:26 have in common is very very small so
2:04:28 imagine the difference between something
2:04:31 in creation that has the same name or
2:04:33 uses the same name and Allah we say it's
2:04:38 even way greater than that and then
2:04:39 that's when we say when you ask us how
2:04:42 it is or the exact function of it is we
2:04:45 can't explain anything like that we can
2:04:46 explain to you what the meaning is and
2:04:49 the very small notion that we want to
2:04:52 apply but besides that we don't go
2:04:55 further than that and when you say well
2:04:57 what's what's the drawing line we want
2:04:59 to stick to the Quran and the Sunnah the
2:05:01 Revelation Allah spoke about himself in
2:05:04 the way that he did and we believe it is
2:05:06 appropriate
2:05:08 right like I'm asking for what you
2:05:11 believe the interpretation is obviously
2:05:13 I mean on over the interpretation right
2:05:17 yeah we've been going over the
2:05:18 interpretation of course of course there
2:05:20 are going to be uh certain things that
2:05:23 if you claim about Allah
2:05:26 um well first of all you have to ask the
2:05:28 person right because just like you had
2:05:30 an idea of what something means and then
2:05:32 you ask us if we have a different
2:05:33 meaning then well you could say oh Jake
2:05:36 I think you're wrong about what that
2:05:38 word means fine but you wouldn't say
2:05:41 it's a contradiction likewise if someone
2:05:44 is using a word and applying it to Allah
2:05:46 the first thing we have to do is ask
2:05:49 them what do they mean by this this is
2:05:51 what all the scholars do regardless
2:05:53 right and then based on that they're
2:05:56 going to come up with some type of
2:05:57 judgment they're going to say well that
2:05:59 term is not mentioned in Quran and
2:06:01 Sunnah so you probably shouldn't use it
2:06:03 but the meaning of it is fine there's
2:06:06 nothing wrong with it or something might
2:06:08 be well it is mentioned but it's not the
2:06:11 meaning that you think it is there's
2:06:13 there's so many different options okay
2:06:16 brother I have one question maybe
2:06:18 that'll uh um
2:06:23 I was gonna say I think what what it is
2:06:25 the problem is we're gonna have to move
2:06:26 on because we've got two more guests so
2:06:28 but just uh just ask you just one more
2:06:31 question
2:06:32 because I I do feel like it's actually
2:06:34 very significant to the topic at hand
2:06:35 which is the topic of uh of mystery
2:06:37 because this is all very mysterious
2:06:40 um not in the not in the sense that it's
2:06:42 confusing but in the sense that we're
2:06:43 talking about metaphysical properties of
2:06:45 Allah and
2:06:47 um you know and its interpretations can
2:06:49 sound like an appeal to mystery to a lot
2:06:51 of people
2:06:53 um so if you have time maybe just one
2:06:55 more question
2:06:57 uh yeah but I think that's the whole
2:06:59 point of raising this as an example
2:07:01 because the point here is saying
2:07:04 if a person appeals to mystery on these
2:07:06 types of topics and somebody claims it's
2:07:08 a contradiction then they're under the
2:07:10 burden of proof to demonstrate the
2:07:11 contradiction if they cannot demonstrate
2:07:14 it's a contradiction and somebody's
2:07:15 saying they're appealing to mystery then
2:07:18 there's there's no uh there's no uh I
2:07:22 mean what how do you say there's no
2:07:23 issues with regards to that in in uh you
2:07:26 know it doesn't make something true or
2:07:28 false per se just by opinion well
2:07:30 there's no there's not
2:07:32 unless there's a contradiction
2:07:35 yeah and if you're justified by the text
2:07:38 to adopt this language then that's fine
2:07:41 we you know so you know like like I
2:07:44 think brother abdulrahman gave the
2:07:46 example of the angels of a wing and
2:07:47 angels of creation other than uh say
2:07:51 wings of angels and wings of of other
2:07:55 creation how they're so radically
2:07:57 different that we can't even comprehend
2:07:59 it yes we can think about attribute and
2:08:01 we can think about function but that's
2:08:03 about it we can't conceptualize it or
2:08:05 visualize it in our minds yeah so
2:08:08 um maybe another example is a very basic
2:08:10 example is like you've got a person
2:08:11 who's blind from birth and you say this
2:08:14 sulfur is red
2:08:16 now he may have a conception of color
2:08:18 potentially I don't think you would even
2:08:20 have that actually but you know he
2:08:22 wouldn't be able to conceive what the
2:08:24 color red is yeah so yeah
2:08:27 um there are going to be appeals to
2:08:29 mystery because we're talking about the
2:08:30 metaphysical talking about the Rabe
2:08:32 isn't it the Unseen yeah you're not for
2:08:34 example like we obviously we believe
2:08:36 that Allah has two right hands and we
2:08:39 affirm that but we we understand that
2:08:42 Allah says he has two right hands in the
2:08:44 sense that he his hands are blessed now
2:08:46 for example yeah that one is understood
2:08:49 in that way Muhammad it's not a good
2:08:50 example I mean
2:08:52 imagine
2:09:00 um you know a different context or so or
2:09:03 society that considered left hands as
2:09:05 blessed
2:09:07 so
2:09:09 what and of course I I know that you
2:09:11 can't say for sure what Allah would say
2:09:13 but I I'm just raising the idea that
2:09:16 would you say that Allah if he said in
2:09:19 that context he has two left hands that
2:09:21 would fundamentally be the same
2:09:23 thing
2:09:25 yeah because it means blessings I mean
2:09:28 yeah because you have to understand part
2:09:31 part of how the the texts are
2:09:33 interpreted is based on the Arabic
2:09:35 language as understood at that time so
2:09:38 of course it's not like Chinese version
2:09:40 of left or right so yeah yeah of course
2:09:42 it's going to be based on that
2:09:44 Muhammad one thing last thing I'm going
2:09:46 to say and maybe Sharif Muhammad could
2:09:49 leave but you can listen to it to what I
2:09:50 have to say here is about you know the
2:09:52 different interpretations thing they're
2:09:54 going to be different interpretations
2:09:55 but that's not really uh you know the
2:09:58 core issue at play in most of these
2:10:00 questions the core issue is that you
2:10:03 have certain you know metaphysical uh
2:10:05 principles that you hold to and on that
2:10:08 basis you're concerned with specific
2:10:10 interpretations of the Quran now if we
2:10:13 look at those metaphysical commitments
2:10:16 for examples or ones that uh try to say
2:10:20 that you couldn't attribute this or that
2:10:23 of God or ones that talk about
2:10:25 composition and multiplicity if we look
2:10:27 at them all on their own grounds our
2:10:29 claim is that they never you know
2:10:32 indicate any type of rational necessity
2:10:36 in the sense that you must hold to this
2:10:37 principle otherwise you're irrational no
2:10:40 I don't think anyone agrees with that at
2:10:42 least people who like you know know this
2:10:44 topic really well uh and uh and and in
2:10:48 that sense it's going to depend on what
2:10:51 your metaphysical principles are going
2:10:52 to the text if you don't see a problem
2:10:55 with specific things that certain
2:10:57 schools do see a problem with like for
2:10:59 example composition and mult what they
2:11:01 call composition or multiplicity then
2:11:03 your it's it's going to be irrelevant
2:11:05 what the actual reading of the text is
2:11:07 you'll say okay let's look at the Arabic
2:11:08 language let's look at the seed let's
2:11:10 look at what the sahaba understood what
2:11:12 the prophet understood what is uh you
2:11:15 know the most likely interpretation
2:11:16 given the rules of the language and the
2:11:19 interpretations of the time and we'll
2:11:22 accept that because you don't have any
2:11:23 kind of metaphysical import that you're
2:11:25 bringing in that forces you to twist the
2:11:28 interpretation possible to have a
2:11:29 metaphysical Imports yeah yeah and what
2:11:31 I mean is yeah of course you're right
2:11:33 you're right but in the sense I mean in
2:11:35 that sense about those specific aspects
2:11:37 that certain people hold to and on the
2:11:39 basis of those aspects they sort of
2:11:42 interpret the Quran in a specific way
2:11:44 that is not the and the or the apparent
2:11:48 as in that they'd see the apparent
2:11:49 meaning and be like oh this is
2:11:50 problematic now let's reinterpret it
2:11:53 into another meaning now I find it very
2:11:55 problematic that Allah would speak in a
2:11:57 language or would reveal his Revelation
2:11:59 in a language that you know be a parent
2:12:01 of which
2:12:03 is actually problematic and
2:12:04 anthropomorphic I'd find that as a
2:12:07 problem but that that's just the point I
2:12:09 wanted to make about you know the
2:12:10 metaphysical principles actually
2:12:11 influencing what you or how you're going
2:12:14 to look at the interpretations yeah I
2:12:16 guess that was how much
2:12:18 I really apologize
2:12:21 for your time right before I leave
2:12:24 actually I just got a quick question for
2:12:26 you did you happen to go to IIs back in
2:12:29 Malaysia
2:12:30 yeah yeah yeah
2:12:33 good to see you again brother good to
2:12:34 see you okay
2:12:40 is that stalker observed man
2:12:43 uh the name doesn't look familiar but
2:12:46 yeah maybe maybe uh maybe an old friend
2:12:48 or something
2:12:50 I'll do that good okay so I was gonna
2:12:53 add the wrong person then uh
2:12:55 salaam which is okay for waiting
2:12:59 I know you you commented in the private
2:13:02 chat that you want to come on to answer
2:13:03 his question as well
2:13:10 so you're gonna ask it make a comment or
2:13:12 question
2:13:14 no I just wanted to make a comment uh
2:13:16 about uh I'm I'm hoping that brother
2:13:19 Muhammad Isham if I'm not mistaking he's
2:13:24 still watching because
2:13:25 there's few points that we need uh to
2:13:29 talk about and not to ignore because our
2:13:33 primary source
2:13:35 from our religion is Quran
2:13:39 you know and for example he's he's
2:13:43 talking about the hand of God before we
2:13:46 talk about this because this is beyond
2:13:48 our understanding according
2:13:51 what Allah
2:13:54 says about this before this for example
2:13:58 Allah talks about thank you the fruits
2:14:01 in heaven
2:14:03 you know can you can you like say that
2:14:07 the fruit that Allah is talking about is
2:14:10 the same fruit that we eat today
2:14:12 of course not and saying extra
2:14:16 things about Allah it's not allowed
2:14:18 because we are as Muslims we are not
2:14:21 allowed to say anything about Allah that
2:14:24 Allah himself didn't say say them about
2:14:27 them about himself
2:14:29 you know
2:14:31 and for
2:14:33 one one last thing I want to mention for
2:14:36 brother Muhammad he I hope that he can
2:14:40 read
2:14:41 aerobic and he can recite the
2:14:46 third
2:14:48 Surah from the seventh Ayah
2:14:52 and Allah specifically is talking about
2:14:55 this issue which people are making like
2:14:58 assumptions and stuff like that about
2:15:00 Allah that's all nothing else
2:15:03 so we have we don't have to make it so
2:15:05 complicated it's very easy to understand
2:15:07 the Quran and whoever wants to
2:15:11 understand it he will he will do that
2:15:13 and whoever wants to doubt it
2:15:17 I think he would he will be
2:15:20 in he will be living in doubt nothing
2:15:23 else
2:15:25 you make a very good point in terms of
2:15:28 the fact that
2:15:29 um some of these types of discussions
2:15:31 might come across quite complex and
2:15:33 philosophical but they they became
2:15:35 philosophical or complex because of the
2:15:38 way people or different sex or even
2:15:41 externally from Christians how they try
2:15:43 to undermine Islam uh on some of these
2:15:46 types of points whether it's the hand of
2:15:48 Allah whether it's to do with the speech
2:15:50 of Allah the Quran Etc and how they you
2:15:53 know it sort of multiplied into lots of
2:15:55 debates and discussions but you know
2:15:57 from an from an ordinary Muslim point of
2:16:00 view these types of discussions and
2:16:01 these types of you know in this type of
2:16:04 a way of discussing it as the brothers
2:16:06 have discussed it here is not necessary
2:16:08 anyway in terms of achieving starvation
2:16:11 um as Muslims when we look at these
2:16:13 verses we take the general apparent
2:16:15 meaning that just comes to our head and
2:16:16 that's about it really you know when
2:16:18 when we talk about these things we don't
2:16:20 really go into the depth of talking
2:16:22 about the sifata for Allah and how it is
2:16:24 a literal metaphorical how is it taken
2:16:26 literally this another there are certain
2:16:28 fundamental things uh that we accept as
2:16:31 you mentioned the verse about how we
2:16:33 view the Quran through the Muslim or
2:16:36 these aspects through the clear cut and
2:16:38 that the mother shall be heard those
2:16:40 things which are maybe not readily
2:16:41 acceptable we look at it from that
2:16:43 perspective and I mean that's that's a
2:16:46 general perspective that we look at and
2:16:48 then the mothership that cannot be fully
2:16:50 comprehended from the mind this is where
2:16:52 you know uh it's because human beings
2:16:55 are limited and maybe the text is
2:16:57 understanding in terms of explaining
2:16:59 fully the reality of the rape
2:17:01 on these matters and so we're uh
2:17:05 justified in appealing to a mystery in
2:17:07 that sense or in the justified in terms
2:17:09 of not being able to fully comprehend
2:17:11 these matters of the rape which we're
2:17:13 not necessitated to know anyway for our
2:17:16 salvation
2:17:18 exactly that's not a part of our
2:17:20 salvation and uh one more thing for
2:17:22 example uh Allah names our Prophet Allah
2:17:29 like the illiterate Prophet but if we
2:17:34 talk about this illiterate Prophet
2:17:35 actually he knows way way more about
2:17:40 or way way more than
2:17:44 the the philosophers and the most uh
2:17:48 intelligent people that we know in from
2:17:51 throughout the history so like our this
2:17:55 on me is in in Arabic uh actually it's
2:18:00 on me about the religion it's it's like
2:18:03 you have to just to follow not a blind
2:18:07 uh like we're not blind followers but
2:18:12 as Muslims we have to accept that that
2:18:15 what Allah says is true and just like I
2:18:18 said if Allah didn't say something about
2:18:20 himself we cannot explain that it
2:18:23 doesn't matter what it is
2:18:25 you know what I mean
2:18:27 yeah no just okay for your comment we're
2:18:30 going to move on to the other guest but
2:18:32 I appreciate you coming on uh okay I
2:18:35 don't know yeah just off okay I just
2:18:37 tastes stay tuned I think the other
2:18:38 brothers might want to comment as well
2:18:40 put yourself okay sorry okay
2:18:44 uh it's got uh so I need to go through
2:18:47 these quickly because we've been on for
2:18:48 a while so apologies if you feel uh
2:18:51 rushed but uh yeah it was a assalamu
2:18:55 alaikum how are you brother
2:18:59 are you there was there
2:19:01 yes Arkansas
2:19:05 uh so
2:19:08 sorry
2:19:10 have you got a comment or question
2:19:13 yeah um so it was kind of leading up
2:19:16 from the discussion that you had before
2:19:19 um
2:19:21 well uh so I don't want to rehash any of
2:19:23 the like the old arguments
2:19:26 um because you guys have been talking
2:19:27 for a while
2:19:29 um let's just uh I actually want to just
2:19:31 talk about uh the concept of uh
2:19:34 just determinism and free will uh so how
2:19:38 exactly are you know people often appeal
2:19:40 to mystery regarding those two
2:19:43 um I I'm not sure how that's not seen as
2:19:46 a contradiction how you can have both
2:19:48 Free Will and uh you know a
2:19:49 deterministic set of Affairs
2:19:53 um I don't know what are you guys
2:19:54 thoughts on that
2:19:55 okay that's a good question actually
2:19:57 just about a link to the topic
2:20:00 so that's another aspect of mystery we
2:20:03 didn't talk about
2:20:06 um yeah I mean I remember brother Ed mod
2:20:09 I think you guys know him he he I
2:20:11 remember a status here or it was a
2:20:13 comment that was very nice about
2:20:15 um the paradoxes and and you know
2:20:19 um when it is valid to filter mystery
2:20:21 and when it isn't and one of the aspects
2:20:22 he mentioned in that comment that I
2:20:24 still remember was that um if if you
2:20:27 arrive at the truth of uh you know both
2:20:31 horns of the apparent contradiction or
2:20:34 the Paradox through necessary and sound
2:20:36 reasoning then you have a much better
2:20:38 case to appeal to mystery than if you
2:20:41 don't right as in if um
2:20:44 I arrive at free will
2:20:47 through a sound method and I arrive at
2:20:50 uh you know I don't know what you want
2:20:53 to call it determinism or
2:20:55 because not everybody's gonna agree with
2:20:56 it but not hard determinism but
2:20:58 determinism uh soundly as well then
2:21:01 that's not a contradiction but then
2:21:03 there's apparent Paradox here that uh
2:21:05 you know it's you could just leave it at
2:21:07 that or you could try to work it out but
2:21:09 then the reason it's different as well
2:21:11 is that there's no real explicit
2:21:13 contradiction because there are
2:21:14 different accounts of what free will is
2:21:16 and there are different accounts of what
2:21:20 determinism entails right uh so that's
2:21:24 that's going to be a whole discussion on
2:21:25 its own I mean so you're going to have
2:21:27 the incompatible lists who you know if
2:21:30 they do see determinism and Free Will as
2:21:33 uh incompatible they will say that well
2:21:36 either you know they'll either take a
2:21:38 hard determinist stance where there's no
2:21:39 free will or they'll be like
2:21:41 Libertarians about free will or
2:21:44 compatibilists have ways to say that
2:21:46 it's not
2:21:48 uh you know inconsistent to hold to both
2:21:51 of these Notions at the same time and
2:21:52 they have different explanations for
2:21:53 that uh that's very different from like
2:21:56 questions of like identity and you know
2:21:59 you being a thing and it's negation at
2:22:02 the same time and same way so it's not
2:22:04 really as straightforward as that
2:22:07 um just just to like uh ask for
2:22:09 clarification
2:22:11 um like the Inc like the compatibilistic
2:22:13 approach to the to this discussion
2:22:16 um isn't it often just that the uh the
2:22:19 will is just reduced oh it's like it's
2:22:21 illusionary
2:22:22 um like even from the intuitive
2:22:24 perspective if you uh try identifying a
2:22:27 will
2:22:28 um I I guess that's more of like an
2:22:30 epistemological thing to do but uh if
2:22:32 you just looked at what really is a will
2:22:34 wouldn't it kind of uh uh wouldn't it
2:22:39 kind of just be like an illusion like
2:22:42 even the compatibilists would be arguing
2:22:43 that the wheel is actually Just an
2:22:45 Illusion here
2:22:46 um so my question is compatibles would
2:22:48 argue that they just wouldn't be
2:22:50 Libertarians about Free Will I mean
2:22:52 they'd have a different understanding of
2:22:53 what free will is
2:22:55 but it so if it's not libertarian Free
2:22:58 Will
2:22:59 um and to be fair I'm not really read up
2:23:01 on the literature so I wouldn't know but
2:23:03 my only thing is like if it's not
2:23:05 libertarian free will uh then is it even
2:23:07 like a will at all because at that point
2:23:09 it's it's kind of just
2:23:12 um like it's it seems very illusionary
2:23:16 but your brother your question kind of
2:23:18 begs the question for the libertarian's
2:23:20 position so yeah clearly if you're a
2:23:22 Libertarian that's how you're going to
2:23:23 see it but it kind of begs the question
2:23:25 if you're talking to a compatibleist and
2:23:27 you say well if libertarian Free Will is
2:23:29 not true then there is no free will but
2:23:32 that's kind of the point of dispute so
2:23:34 it's understandable that you say that
2:23:36 provided you're a Libertarian but it's
2:23:38 not going to really do any work in your
2:23:40 discussion with the compatibleist
2:23:42 because that is the very point that
2:23:45 needs to be discussed
2:23:46 foreign
2:23:54 I mean we can give a more detailed
2:23:56 answer but maybe we need a whole stream
2:23:57 about this but I think if we if we delve
2:24:00 deeper into it it's going to take us a
2:24:02 bit far off uh you know yeah that makes
2:24:05 sense although to be fair in the past
2:24:07 discussion did as well uh but I don't
2:24:11 know I mean I'm happy to talk about it
2:24:12 if uh Sharif I don't know what you think
2:24:15 no I think we're gonna move we can't
2:24:18 talk about it but I think it might be
2:24:20 best to move on yeah
2:24:24 yeah because otherwise we won't do it
2:24:27 justice to be honest
2:24:29 um but yeah I think I think uh the issue
2:24:31 then becomes what's the definition of
2:24:33 will yeah who's who's an agent in that
2:24:36 situation and there's going to be
2:24:38 different uh understandings of that but
2:24:40 I think the main main point that maybe
2:24:42 to understand is when somebody argues
2:24:46 something is a logical contradiction
2:24:49 the bar is incredibly High to
2:24:51 demonstrate that it is a logical
2:24:52 contradiction it's not easy to
2:24:54 demonstrate something is a logical
2:24:56 contradiction because he just needs one
2:24:58 little way out uh in order to sort of
2:25:01 give a possible meaning to the words
2:25:04 that he's saying in order to avoid a
2:25:07 logical contradiction so
2:25:10 um like I said this idea of Free Will
2:25:12 and determinism if there's one way out
2:25:15 in terms of the way they Define their
2:25:17 terms then you know you can't really
2:25:20 apply it as a logical contradiction in
2:25:22 that sense does that make sense as a
2:25:24 yeah yeah
2:25:26 um I I see 100 what you're saying again
2:25:28 I don't want to take up any of your time
2:25:29 so no because that makes sense
2:25:32 appreciate it yeah cool thank you okay
2:25:35 what's up
2:25:38 right uh so we have uh we have uh lpt
2:25:43 sucks I assume that's logical problem of
2:25:47 the trinity
2:25:49 yeah
2:25:51 I'm doing okay
2:25:53 uh I would like you guys to do a favor
2:25:56 for me uh can you please tell because
2:25:58 I'm gonna be clipping this can you tell
2:26:00 my Christian brothers and sisters that
2:26:02 uh the lpt only works if you hold to the
2:26:05 so-called Orthodox position especially
2:26:07 as it relates to the Incarnation
2:26:13 very familiar
2:26:17 yeah
2:26:18 can you can you can you just tell my
2:26:20 friends that the lpt only works as it
2:26:23 relates to uh uh the Orthodox positions
2:26:26 because um this is Jake's discussion
2:26:28 Jake where'd you go man come back for
2:26:30 this no because I think I already
2:26:31 discussed this with Jake and he couldn't
2:26:33 find any logical problems what he did is
2:26:35 try to show me scripturally that I was
2:26:37 wrong
2:26:39 that didn't work you either but I don't
2:26:41 know
2:26:43 um I don't think you really believe in
2:26:45 the Trinity do you Terry I do I I came
2:26:48 with the the sun analogy which is again
2:26:49 infallible and has yet to be refuted by
2:26:52 anybody you uh Mansour it's all in my
2:26:56 channel
2:26:57 father's God son is God holy spirit's
2:27:00 God you have three gods
2:27:02 uh well yeah see the problem with the
2:27:05 lpt I didn't want to go to the Trinity
2:27:06 because I already did this with you I
2:27:07 wanted to do this for the Incarnation
2:27:09 because I did a debate with Matt slick
2:27:10 and you're going to be debating him soon
2:27:12 so I debated this specific issue and I
2:27:14 wanted to add layers to it but as far as
2:27:17 your uh the father's God the son's God
2:27:19 the holy spirit is God Scripture doesn't
2:27:21 reveal
2:27:22 um these this model that you're trying
2:27:24 to present the father is called Theon
2:27:26 God an exclusive title to him so unless
2:27:29 you address that or uh apply that to
2:27:32 your question
2:27:35 yes is he God
2:27:38 they are as per his uh if you want to
2:27:42 identify him when he says God in the
2:27:44 Greek is chaos when it says father is
2:27:46 teon so there's a different
2:27:47 qualification as it relates to the
2:27:49 person so you're gonna have to add this
2:27:51 here are they different are they
2:27:52 different gods
2:27:55 I just gauge I just gave you an
2:27:57 application of the word God in the Greek
2:28:00 stay on for the father they ask for the
2:28:02 son they ask for the holy spirit so you
2:28:05 have to yeah are they God in the same
2:28:07 way or not are you how are you applying
2:28:09 the word God in this sense I'm asking
2:28:12 you are they God in the same way or not
2:28:14 uh not as it relates to a person no
2:28:18 okay so then they're not the same God
2:28:21 not as it relates to person to share the
2:28:24 same qualities though the sun analogy to
2:28:26 raise the heat
2:28:27 what makes them God the fact that they
2:28:30 share the same qualities yeah that's
2:28:32 good enough okay and each one of them
2:28:34 have those qualities so they each have
2:28:37 fully what it takes to be God so each
2:28:39 one of them is a God not not okay I
2:28:41 understand what you're saying not unless
2:28:42 because the sun is within the father you
2:28:45 cannot remove the Sun from the father or
2:28:47 the Holy Spirit from the father so when
2:28:49 you speak into the father your the son
2:28:50 is within and the Holy Spirit is with
2:28:52 him the same thing I said about the sun
2:28:54 analogy the raising the heat at the
2:28:55 point of urgent is the Sun s-u-n so I as
2:28:58 it relates to the operational
2:28:59 relationship between the person of the
2:29:01 godhead the sun s-o-n is within the
2:29:03 bosom of the father and he projects from
2:29:05 the father he is the race the humility
2:29:06 of the Father by which we can engage he
2:29:09 can engage with his creation his abstain
2:29:11 his creation which is problematic for
2:29:12 the Islamic God but that's a whole
2:29:14 different issue I'm willing to defend my
2:29:16 God the fact Still Remains he is the son
2:29:18 the son is when is the Sun as you went
2:29:20 at the point of urgent and he is the
2:29:22 race the humility of the father so he
2:29:24 holds both uh positions uh
2:29:26 simultaneously so as it relates to the
2:29:29 operational relation relationship of uh
2:29:31 the persons of the guided we see Father
2:29:33 the s-u-n Son is the race the holy
2:29:36 spirit is the heat but as it relates to
2:29:38 the nature
2:29:40 all three of them are at the point
2:29:41 origin is the su-1 uh son so they share
2:29:45 the same nature in that way
2:29:47 can you argue against that yeah then you
2:29:50 still have three Gods because you have
2:29:51 three individuals you have three
2:29:53 individuals which are each fully God and
2:29:56 they're not each other it's three Gods
2:29:58 it doesn't matter the fact that they're
2:29:59 Inseparable in terms of spatial location
2:30:02 or anything like that the way in which
2:30:04 we count objects as we count objects by
2:30:07 the amount of individuals that possess a
2:30:10 certain quality and in this case we have
2:30:12 three individuals which are not
2:30:14 identical to each other and they're each
2:30:16 called God there's three Gods okay so
2:30:19 you so I'm gonna address your point I'm
2:30:21 just gonna clearly stipulate that you
2:30:24 you did not address the fact that
2:30:25 there's a distinction of the Greek word
2:30:27 God as it relates for the father or son
2:30:29 you didn't adjust that you didn't adjust
2:30:31 the sun analogy that he at this point of
2:30:33 origin the Son and the Holy Spirit is
2:30:35 the Sun as you went same nature analogy
2:30:37 doesn't work
2:30:39 the same nature
2:30:42 no problem I'm gonna address your point
2:30:44 I'm gonna address your your latest point
2:30:45 I I totally disagree with you Terry this
2:30:47 is largely irrelevant to the stream this
2:30:49 is way off track you're talking about
2:30:51 the lpt I'm going to address your last
2:30:53 point and I'm going to show again how
2:30:54 illogical your position is because you
2:30:57 suggested that somehow uh because there
2:31:00 are three persons in eternality sharing
2:31:02 the same Eternal Essence somehow that's
2:31:05 three Gods can you explain to me how you
2:31:07 can have three units in eternality
2:31:12 because you're talking about I don't
2:31:13 know what that question means three
2:31:15 units okay can you have a unit can you
2:31:17 have a unit in Eternal reality can you
2:31:20 have a unit can you can you say one two
2:31:22 three four five six since one two three
2:31:25 relates to temporal
2:31:30 you're you're a popular guy
2:31:38 how can you have units one two three
2:31:40 four five six in eternality please just
2:31:42 for my people my questions because
2:31:43 because the way in which we count is by
2:31:46 identity so if you have two things the
2:31:49 way in which you know and you count two
2:31:51 things is by the fact that they have
2:31:53 different properties so you counting has
2:31:55 nothing to do with time or temporality
2:31:58 or things changing or anything like that
2:32:01 we can count individuals based on the
2:32:04 fact that there are things which do not
2:32:06 possess all the same properties so I
2:32:09 want to make sure to all your people
2:32:10 that's listening to you're saying
2:32:12 numbers like one two three four five six
2:32:14 can exist in eternality
2:32:15 and eternal reality correct because in
2:32:19 eternality don't you have three persons
2:32:21 or do you only have one person no no I'm
2:32:23 using my language in temporal space to
2:32:25 describe it but the end of course
2:32:27 there's an eternality uh and and all
2:32:30 seriousness I'm just using in human
2:32:33 languages no I'm trying to try to
2:32:35 finalize the statement it's okay it's
2:32:37 like it's like me saying your God has
2:32:39 two right hands you're gonna give me an
2:32:40 explanation too you have three persons
2:32:42 in eternality or not does it only become
2:32:45 three words into human language
2:32:46 according to human language yes but the
2:32:49 reality of it is that the father Son and
2:32:51 Holy Spirit and the god United that's it
2:32:54 so in reality there's only one person
2:32:57 I'm going to repeat and eternality if
2:32:59 you're using a break uh uh uh the hip
2:33:02 break if you're holding to the hebraic
2:33:04 narrative this father-son and holy
2:33:06 spirit does not one two three persons
2:33:08 that's nowhere in scripture this
2:33:10 father-son and Holy Spirit and their
2:33:11 ecard United that's it that's that's
2:33:14 what that's right I'm using human
2:33:16 language to entertain to entertain are
2:33:20 they can you count father is one son is
2:33:23 two and spirit is three
2:33:26 uh using human language but the reality
2:33:29 of the fact is there's no numbers or
2:33:32 mathematics or numbers do not apply to
2:33:35 the Eternal reality
2:33:38 God one is there one God in eternality
2:33:42 does a unified God there's not one one
2:33:46 there's not one God in eternality if
2:33:48 you're using human language yes okay so
2:33:51 in the same way that there's one God in
2:33:54 eternality there's three persons in
2:33:57 eternality here's a human language yeah
2:33:59 using human language yes so why were you
2:34:01 averse to doing that before it's because
2:34:03 it results in there being three Gods but
2:34:06 you didn't want to do it you were
2:34:07 willing to do it when it came to saying
2:34:09 that there's one God maybe I don't
2:34:11 express myself too well I'm gonna repeat
2:34:13 my position
2:34:14 I thought I made myself very clear I
2:34:17 said if I'm going to use human language
2:34:18 from my perspective I could say one God
2:34:21 with three persons the reality of the
2:34:23 fact is not different reality okay the
2:34:26 true reality of the Eternal reality
2:34:28 there's nothing there's not three
2:34:30 persons because three does not exist in
2:34:32 internality the reality is if numbers
2:34:34 don't exist in re in in eternality in
2:34:37 reality then there's not three persons
2:34:40 in reality in eternality and there's
2:34:42 also not not one God
2:34:44 no I I I thought I said human
2:34:46 perspective and reality there's two
2:34:49 different reality in reality and
2:34:52 eternality from God's perspective
2:34:53 there's not three persons okay and
2:34:55 there's not one God okay no problem so
2:34:57 from your God's perspective he has he
2:35:00 doesn't have two right hands
2:35:02 no he said he said you're you're arguing
2:35:06 goes against you it goes against
2:35:09 you just said from God's perspective in
2:35:12 eternality and reality there is not one
2:35:15 God
2:35:16 they said unified God a card guard yes
2:35:18 okay there's an ichab God but there's
2:35:20 not a one God there's no one God or
2:35:22 distinguished as Father Son and Holy
2:35:24 Spirit okay thank you very much make
2:35:26 sure you clip this out and put down the
2:35:28 part where you said no no but in reality
2:35:32 there is not one God according to God
2:35:35 himself
2:35:36 from Human perspective I could say one
2:35:38 God three persons from God's perspective
2:35:40 there's only father Son and Holy Spirit
2:35:42 the number one doesn't doesn't matter
2:35:44 God's perspective is not one number one
2:35:46 number two number three numbers do not
2:35:48 apply to the Eternal reality and if I'm
2:35:50 gonna apply the same consistency with
2:35:52 you then you're God having two right
2:35:53 hand makes
2:35:55 I have to use human standards eternality
2:35:58 so describe what that means god
2:36:00 according to you sir I'm sorry what did
2:36:01 you say according to you God himself
2:36:05 does not believe that there is one God
2:36:07 in eternity past no he he doesn't say
2:36:09 hey
2:36:12 guys
2:36:13 no one God exists huh
2:36:17 no one God exists no one because he
2:36:20 doesn't use numbers doesn't he denies
2:36:23 his self-existence are you serious
2:36:25 [Music]
2:36:32 is not one God according to God in
2:36:36 eternity past no he doesn't say he
2:36:38 doesn't let me make it clear he doesn't
2:36:40 say he doesn't say hey guys there's one
2:36:42 God and three persons he doesn't say no
2:36:44 you said he recognizes himself he he
2:36:47 does not say or recognize you said he
2:36:50 doesn't even recognize because there's
2:36:52 no counting there's no numbers so
2:36:54 there's not one God no again one you're
2:36:57 using the word one as it relates to
2:37:00 human standards I'm saying he recognized
2:37:02 his his existence and he recognizes the
2:37:06 distinguishing between the person's
2:37:07 father
2:37:08 using human standards number one is
2:37:11 their number one in God's standards
2:37:14 that's different than human standards
2:37:15 yes because number one doesn't uh number
2:37:18 one doesn't apply to him it applies to
2:37:20 us okay so so numbers apply to Creation
2:37:23 but numbers don't apply to God so we
2:37:26 can't say there's one God according to
2:37:28 God no you could say it he won't say it
2:37:30 that's the point
2:37:33 so God does not know that there's only
2:37:36 one God okay I'm gonna try to maybe it's
2:37:39 me who's uh I have a problem explaining
2:37:41 myself when you had a guy just not too
2:37:44 long ago said you your God has two right
2:37:46 hands that's
2:37:48 not even two right hands a hand does it
2:37:50 does the hand the word hand apply the
2:37:53 same way for God yes or no be consistent
2:37:56 because if you're going to say one two
2:37:57 three this has to apply to me there's
2:37:59 nothing to do with it we're talking it's
2:38:00 the same thing if if we said does God
2:38:03 have the same thing attribute if God has
2:38:04 an attribute one attribute which is
2:38:06 knowledge yes that's one attribute a
2:38:09 second attribute which is power yes we
2:38:11 can talk about one actually I'm talking
2:38:13 about hands
2:38:14 one hand one attribute
2:38:18 no no no no listen to clearly to the
2:38:21 point I'm making you're using that word
2:38:23 hand your God has hands so this is
2:38:26 counting how is it irrelevant you're
2:38:29 telling me I have to apply count one
2:38:31 hand two hands one knowledge one power
2:38:34 one will be an argument I'm making
2:38:37 that's not even an argument I'm making
2:38:38 I'm saying said numbers you're using
2:38:40 human standards for number one two and
2:38:43 three human status and you're trying to
2:38:44 apply that to the Eternal reality I'm
2:38:45 saying okay if you're gonna do that if
2:38:47 you're gonna do that you say nothing
2:38:49 you're not letting me finish because you
2:38:50 see you got caught again let me finish
2:38:52 my statement if you're going to use
2:38:53 human standards as it relates to numbers
2:38:55 I'm done with this guy I'm I'm just
2:38:57 gonna find it this is going to finalize
2:38:59 this statement if you if you're going to
2:39:01 use human standards okay okay no problem
2:39:03 I mean come on like what did you say
2:39:07 they say give up while you're ahead but
2:39:10 you're not even ahead I mean just give
2:39:12 up while you're still breathing I mean
2:39:13 okay
2:39:14 what's the point what's the point of
2:39:16 everything you said is just refuting its
2:39:19 own self and he just demonstrates can
2:39:20 you give me an example five times in a
2:39:22 row yeah give me an example unaffected
2:39:24 um no no but give me an example forever
2:39:27 your confidence is increasing like I
2:39:29 know I know I know I know but that's
2:39:31 that's a that's a claim can you give me
2:39:33 an example explain to me how me saying
2:39:36 using human standards can can I just
2:39:39 find this is the reason why you're
2:39:41 you're interrupting me because you know
2:39:42 I made a point how the fact that me
2:39:45 using human standards I say there's one
2:39:47 God but it doesn't apply to God in his
2:39:50 eternal
2:39:50 Eternal reality it's not synonymous to
2:39:52 the fact that me saying your God have
2:39:54 hands doesn't mean he has hands like us
2:39:56 that's not the same thing human
2:39:59 standards in both both of them are using
2:40:01 human standards human standards for
2:40:03 hands human standards for numbers humans
2:40:05 standing for hands human standard human
2:40:08 standard first something
2:40:10 yeah
2:40:12 did you use the lpt on Max lick did you
2:40:15 use it on him did you let's see I said I
2:40:17 served you this year I sent it to you I
2:40:20 asked you a question did you use the lpt
2:40:23 on Matt slick whatever why would I use
2:40:26 the argument I got my own delicious
2:40:27 arguments why would I use the arguments
2:40:29 [Music]
2:40:31 hey hey why would I use your arguments
2:40:34 hey I have my own argument that guys
2:40:37 watch this well you can watch this
2:40:40 Friday and see what happens with Matt
2:40:41 slick I know you're probably gonna win
2:40:43 against that you're probably but the
2:40:44 thing is is that he's gonna be on the
2:40:47 hot seat you don't seem to like to
2:40:49 defend your own religion you think so
2:40:51 you don't like you don't like to defend
2:40:53 your own religion you're always on the
2:40:54 attack
2:40:55 how do you figure that
2:40:58 um every time I see you trying to defend
2:40:59 your God how many videos If masslick
2:41:03 wants to debate me on Islam he can
2:41:05 debate me I saw you you know that every
2:41:08 every single every single debate almost
2:41:11 that I've ever had was the other person
2:41:13 challenging me I don't ask them for
2:41:15 debates they ask me no no no no I'm
2:41:18 gonna say that I'm saying I'm saying
2:41:19 you're willing to debate uh
2:41:20 Christianity they are asking me for it I
2:41:24 understand I understand but just those
2:41:25 same problems you're not comfortable to
2:41:27 try to defend your own God that's that's
2:41:28 the point I was making how long have I
2:41:30 been on here for two hours talking about
2:41:32 my God no I saw your debate with Dr
2:41:34 Khalil it didn't look good it didn't
2:41:36 look good you look good against
2:41:38 something no no problem
2:41:40 Terry this conversation is not looking
2:41:43 too good for yourself yeah yeah there's
2:41:45 numbers
2:41:49 What God Says in the Quran or even in
2:41:52 the Bible that God is one yeah you're
2:41:56 basically saying you're basically saying
2:41:58 that it doesn't say one
2:42:00 like a unit it doesn't say that
2:42:02 you're inventing things
2:42:04 in the Quran it does yeah yeah I know
2:42:06 that's a problem for you guys because
2:42:08 you don't even know what your God is
2:42:09 it's not a problem for us Terry because
2:42:11 Terry we don't accept your positions and
2:42:13 premises in this conversation is that
2:42:15 your argument what is that supposed to
2:42:18 mean you didn't say nothing serious
2:42:19 right there
2:42:21 eternality because that's what they're
2:42:22 saying because Terry what you're what
2:42:25 you're trying to do is you're trying to
2:42:26 say based on how I understand numbers
2:42:28 and how I understand counting takes
2:42:31 place this is how I'm going to apply it
2:42:33 to your religion yeah no I said I I
2:42:36 didn't say my religion I said eternality
2:42:38 don't put my religion eternality okay so
2:42:42 don't don't misrepresent me because
2:42:44 you're misrepresenting my argument
2:42:47 numbers does not apply to eternality I
2:42:50 think that's logical thank you take care
2:42:53 Terry
2:42:55 foreign
2:43:26 thank you very much
2:43:30 he's a nice guy
2:43:32 uh well
2:43:34 I think he needs to he needs to he needs
2:43:36 to slow down reflect and sort of apply
2:43:38 the criteria upon himself you know in
2:43:41 terms of trying to think these things
2:43:42 through before he starts
2:43:45 you know roll it out oh yeah well he
2:43:48 actually has I mean he he changed some
2:43:50 of his views and the language he was
2:43:52 using uh due to having discussions and
2:43:55 conversations with me which he's
2:43:57 admitted and then yet he's coming on
2:44:00 here acting like you know he's some big
2:44:02 shot I mean
2:44:04 I don't know he's just strange guy
2:44:08 I don't know why is he saying numbers
2:44:10 don't apply to eternality
2:44:13 you can't apparently you can't count in
2:44:15 eternity past like there's no one God
2:44:19 yeah God doesn't know he's one God and
2:44:22 Eternity fast it's just bizarre yeah
2:44:25 okay cool right okay guys uh we've got
2:44:29 nobody else
2:44:31 uh and uh so I don't know if Brothers
2:44:34 wanna
2:44:35 uh say anything last or
2:44:39 any points that we're going to say
2:44:45 um well let's be clear there was one
2:44:47 guard and still is one God from eternity
2:44:50 pass so let's just clear that out
2:44:54 but um no I think it was a it was a good
2:44:57 stream I think uh there's clearly a
2:44:59 difference between uh mystery and
2:45:02 contradiction it went over the various
2:45:04 points of when it's okay to quote
2:45:07 unquote accept a mystery in some sense
2:45:09 and that you can't fully understand
2:45:10 something there's no problem with that
2:45:13 um obviously you can't accept a
2:45:14 contradiction or appeal to mystery in
2:45:17 light of being shown that your view is
2:45:19 contradictory and we explained that
2:45:22 people for the most part when they're
2:45:24 criticizing Islamic Theology and
2:45:25 claiming it's contradictory they're not
2:45:27 actually showing an example of the
2:45:29 contradiction and a and not a so this is
2:45:32 some advice to the people who are
2:45:33 listening now and later on because I
2:45:35 know there'll be people who are who are
2:45:38 trying to do that especially with me
2:45:40 anyway do some homework actually
2:45:42 accurately represent our position
2:45:46 um and then come and bring a clear
2:45:48 contradiction and show The Logical
2:45:50 problem of tawheed like we do but the
2:45:52 logical problem of the Trinity but till
2:45:54 then
2:45:55 um really I think it's pointless to even
2:45:59 consider because you guys cannot even
2:46:01 show a a logical contradiction I don't
2:46:05 even know maybe if they don't know what
2:46:07 it is but that's a whole other story and
2:46:09 how you should watch our stream we
2:46:11 actually did a whole stream on what is I
2:46:14 think a logical yeah we did we did
2:46:16 people should check that out we actually
2:46:19 did a whole stream I think on uh logical
2:46:23 contradiction and I think we did a whole
2:46:25 stream on um is the Trinity of mystery I
2:46:27 think we did both so if you combine
2:46:29 those two together with this one then
2:46:32 that should help you out inshallah
2:46:36 comments points things that you're doing
2:46:40 no thank you everybody for joining and
2:46:44 thanks yeah
2:46:45 okay I'm gonna try and do this properly
2:46:48 so I'm gonna have to do the outro and
2:46:50 then end the stream but to everybody
2:46:53 who's listening hopefully inshallah you
2:46:55 find it beneficial you know we started
2:46:57 off relatively you know basic and we
2:47:00 start building layers upon these types
2:47:01 of discussions but as Jake mentioned to
2:47:04 reiterate that point which is it's
2:47:06 really important because in order to
2:47:08 understand and evaluate beliefs and also
2:47:10 in order to understand and evaluate
2:47:11 people's arguments you need to have
2:47:13 these types of understandings about what
2:47:14 a logical contradiction is when
2:47:16 appealing to mystery when you accuse
2:47:18 somebody of a logical contradiction you
2:47:19 have to demonstrate it when somebody has
2:47:22 been accused and shown a demonstration
2:47:24 he's now under a burden of proof in
2:47:26 order to
2:47:27 argue against uh demonstrate that it
2:47:29 isn't a logical contradiction so
2:47:31 hopefully people are aware of these
2:47:33 types of things so that they can better
2:47:34 understand and evaluate uh belief
2:47:37 systems for themselves
2:47:40 we will see you hopefully in a couple of
2:47:43 weeks time uh hopefully Joseph will be
2:47:45 with us uh back then
2:47:48 um and I you know Jacob and really
2:47:51 quickly but you know a lot of people
2:47:53 have been requesting us to do open q and
2:47:55 A's
2:47:56 yeah so maybe next stream we might
2:48:00 rather than just doing a topic we might
2:48:02 just do an open q a because I know a lot
2:48:03 of people want to got loads of questions
2:48:05 and they just want to ask us questions
2:48:07 so hopefully you guys will be free for
2:48:09 that and show them we'll we'll do
2:48:10 something regardless of that okay
2:48:18 hahaha
2:48:22 [Music]