Does the Trinity Make Sense? | Thought Adventure Podcast #3 (2021-02-14) ​

0:00:06Music 0:00:07 are you
0:00:20 did they just double play the audio then
0:00:22 for everyone else or just me
0:00:27 yeah not for me
0:00:31 i know what i've done i've got one
0:00:33 second
0:00:36 nice because i've got uh the youtube
0:00:38 open in another tab says
0:00:39 i've got the loop oh yeah so
0:00:41 salaamwalekum everybody welcome to
0:00:43 today's episode we're on uh podcast
0:00:45 number three
0:00:46 of the thought adventure podcast and
0:00:50 today's topic is specifically on the
0:00:53 trinity does it make sense is it
0:00:54 coherent
0:00:56 and we've got a someone who specializes
0:00:59 in this
0:01:00 with us uh jake from the muslim metaphys
0:01:03 the muslim metaphysician it's a
0:01:05 difficult word that
0:01:07 they're trying to say without getting
0:01:08 our tongue twisted how you doing bro
0:01:11 good alhamdulillah
0:01:15 alhamdulillah always good and we got
0:01:17 brother sharif again with us
0:01:19 how are you guys doing as well yeah
0:01:23 for uh for introducing us
0:01:27 but yeah we're doing our controller
0:01:29 we've temporarily lost
0:01:30 abdul rahman it looks like he's just cut
0:01:32 off so he should be back with us in a
0:01:34 moment
0:01:35 but yeah so what we're obviously gonna
0:01:37 do is we're gonna discuss that we're
0:01:38 gonna invite
0:01:38 christians on and obviously they can try
0:01:40 to defend that and
0:01:42 we'll have a little back and forth with
0:01:43 them but we should probably start off
0:01:46 by trying to sort of i guess explain
0:01:49 what the trinity is
0:01:50 uh you know with uh being as charitable
0:01:52 as possible according to how the
0:01:55 christians
0:01:56 would view that uh so if brother james i
0:01:59 was going to say
0:02:00 just before jake uh introduces a
0:02:02 discussion about trinity i think it's a
0:02:04 good discussion
0:02:05 just to introduce the point uh about
0:02:08 how you know last time we had our show
0:02:11 two weeks ago we were talking about
0:02:13 is belief in a creator rational uh
0:02:16 belief in other spanish
0:02:17 is it rational or not and we came
0:02:19 certain conclusions
0:02:20 obviously there's lots more to discuss
0:02:22 about that but we talked about how there
0:02:24 is a necessary being
0:02:26 that's not like things that we see so
0:02:28 it's not similar
0:02:29 similar to you know things within the
0:02:32 universe or contingent beings
0:02:34 there's a necessary unlimited
0:02:35 independent creator who created
0:02:38 uh and so then you know as a muslim
0:02:41 or even just as a human being what we
0:02:43 don't do now
0:02:44 is presuppose our religion and then try
0:02:48 to superimpose that to try to fit the
0:02:50 argument
0:02:51 what we should do as human beings is
0:02:54 if we've rationally come to this
0:02:56 conclusion prior to any revelation
0:02:58 then we would obviously naturally ask
0:03:00 the question you know is there a
0:03:03 revelation from god and obviously we
0:03:05 have lots of people claiming that
0:03:06 there's revelation from god
0:03:08 but we need to test the revelation those
0:03:10 claims and one of the ways to test it
0:03:12 is whether the conception of the creator
0:03:15 fits within this rational understanding
0:03:18 of
0:03:18 uh how we approached or how we came to
0:03:21 the existence of god so this is a very
0:03:22 basic thing
0:03:23 if some religion claims to be from a
0:03:26 creator
0:03:27 but says the creator is a contingent
0:03:29 being is a limited finite dependent
0:03:31 being
0:03:32 then you can say well this isn't really
0:03:34 truly from this
0:03:35 unlimited independent creator and so
0:03:38 it's not a case of presupposing what our
0:03:41 religious text says
0:03:43 but rather looking at the claim in order
0:03:46 to test the claim whether it fits
0:03:48 or whether it agrees with the rational
0:03:50 understanding
0:03:51 and how we approach rationally the
0:03:53 existence of the creator in the first
0:03:55 place there shouldn't be
0:03:56 a conflict between these two things if
0:03:59 the revelation is truly from this
0:04:00 unlimited creator i thought i'd just
0:04:03 introduced that just really quickly so
0:04:06 context yeah so i agree that was a good
0:04:10 place to start
0:04:11 so should we begin as well by um trying
0:04:13 to kind of explain what the trinity is
0:04:15 the best of our abilities so if the
0:04:17 christians are watching
0:04:18 they can at least know that the
0:04:19 understanding that we have of what the
0:04:20 trinity is is at least
0:04:22 uh fair and that we're you know we're
0:04:24 not just gonna kind of jump straight in
0:04:26 with a straw man uh so jake do you want
0:04:27 to take the lead on that and
0:04:29 do your best to kind of explain what the
0:04:31 trinity is according to
0:04:32 uh the uh the more popular christian
0:04:36 doctrine obviously
0:04:37 there's differences in terms of how to
0:04:39 explain the trinity
0:04:40 um but if you could just give the the
0:04:42 most accepted version off that
0:04:44 and if you want to you could obviously
0:04:45 make mention of um maybe some
0:04:48 what the majority would consider
0:04:49 heretical but obviously those that
0:04:51 take these little offshoot ideas um
0:04:54 don't see as heretical but yeah so you
0:04:56 take the lead there bro
0:04:57 right yeah and before i get into that i
0:05:00 just want to
0:05:01 reiterate to our audience uh christians
0:05:04 muslims who's ever watching
0:05:06 what this podcast is about and what
0:05:08 we're trying to do
0:05:10 we're trying to have discussions about
0:05:14 topics that we feel are important
0:05:17 and we may disagree with some of the
0:05:19 viewers who are watching who decide to
0:05:21 come on and have a discussion with us
0:05:24 but we want to be as charitable as
0:05:26 possible to the other people's views
0:05:29 represent them as accurately as we can
0:05:31 and when we disagree
0:05:32 we disagree with respect and you know
0:05:36 proper
0:05:36 um you know respectfulness in the
0:05:39 conversation so
0:05:41 i just want to reiterate it for the
0:05:42 people who do come on
0:05:44 if you disagree with us or if you agree
0:05:47 we don't want to sort of demean other
0:05:49 people we want to have
0:05:51 an honest uh conversation at the end of
0:05:53 the day we're inviting people to the
0:05:55 dean of islam and
0:05:57 we think that this is the best way to do
0:05:59 it so i just want to
0:06:00 reiterate that for our viewers yeah
0:06:04 yeah unless you guys have anything else
0:06:06 to add on that yeah it's just
0:06:08 basically the the whole point of this is
0:06:10 to have a
0:06:12 an emphasis and a focus on etiquette
0:06:14 good etiquette so
0:06:16 you know anyone's welcome to jump on and
0:06:18 have this conversation with us so long
0:06:19 as you
0:06:20 are well-mannered and we will be
0:06:22 well-mannered also we do have someone in
0:06:24 the background for the mustachin
0:06:26 and we've specifically give him orders
0:06:28 to tell us
0:06:29 as well if we ever get um a bit out of
0:06:31 hand or if we become
0:06:33 you know we cross any lines and if our
0:06:35 etiquettes lack in any way
0:06:36 so it's not just going to be the viewers
0:06:38 that are going to be held to account in
0:06:39 terms of how they
0:06:40 present themselves or how they engage um
0:06:42 the whole thing is supposed to be
0:06:44 a cordial environment and obviously
0:06:47 there's a
0:06:48 um a responsibility and a duty on us
0:06:50 sort of hold that as well
0:06:51 so yeah i just wanted to kind of add
0:06:54 that a little bit there but yeah so
0:06:55 you you go ahead bro and take the leap
0:06:58 all right yeah so the trinity is a
0:07:01 christian doctrine
0:07:02 obviously it's basically the
0:07:04 understanding
0:07:05 that there's one god or one being of god
0:07:10 that exists amongst three persons the
0:07:12 father son and holy spirit so
0:07:15 each one of these persons typically is
0:07:18 understood as being fully divine or
0:07:20 fully god
0:07:21 and yet there's only one god which is
0:07:23 the one being of god
0:07:25 now exactly how that works and
0:07:28 how it's explained uh differs depending
0:07:31 on
0:07:32 um sort of what theologian you're
0:07:34 looking at or what philosopher is
0:07:36 explaining
0:07:37 um how this three-in-one thing works
0:07:41 and there's different schools of thought
0:07:43 as you know we can go into detail if we
0:07:45 have to with any of the guests but
0:07:47 i'm going to not really go too much in
0:07:49 depth with it because
0:07:51 i want to keep it as simple as possible
0:07:53 for the viewers so if anybody wants to
0:07:55 go in like
0:07:56 really deep into explaining the
0:07:58 different models and things like that we
0:08:00 can
0:08:01 but just on a very broad uh general
0:08:04 level
0:08:05 uh the trinity is the idea that there's
0:08:07 one god there's one
0:08:08 essence nature substance of god that
0:08:12 exists amongst three persons there's a
0:08:13 father son and holy spirit
0:08:15 christians believe that this is a
0:08:17 doctrine that's uh found in their
0:08:19 scripture
0:08:20 or that's grounded in their scriptures
0:08:22 and their early creeds
0:08:23 and for the most part that's why they
0:08:26 believe in it
0:08:27 um now we may differ with them in uh in
0:08:30 that respect and obviously as muslims
0:08:32 uh we don't accept the idea that god is
0:08:35 a trinity we believe that
0:08:36 uh god is completely one um that he's
0:08:40 not dependent upon
0:08:41 anything else and that there's no
0:08:43 multiplicity in god in the sense of
0:08:46 of there being three persons so i want
0:08:48 to keep it um
0:08:49 i think that's fine as far as
0:08:52 contrasting the views and just kind of
0:08:54 briefly explaining what the trinity is
0:08:56 if we need to go into more detail we can
0:08:59 i don't know if you guys have anything
0:09:01 else to add to that as far as explaining
0:09:04 you know what the trinity is and um
0:09:08 you know if you guys want to comment you
0:09:10 can no i think that was pretty fair um i
0:09:13 guess we could at this point ask
0:09:14 the viewers um you know if you're a
0:09:17 christian in the chat
0:09:18 hit one and put that into the chat just
0:09:22 type one
0:09:23 and hit enter uh if you think that what
0:09:25 jake just said there is a fair
0:09:26 representation
0:09:28 of the christian doctrine of trinity
0:09:31 uh and you know so it and two if you
0:09:33 don't if you disagree with his uh thing
0:09:35 there then we can kind of get an idea
0:09:37 so we've got one from chris claus
0:09:40 uh kind of give it a moment so while it
0:09:44 comes salon to everyone who's joining us
0:09:46 we've got 41 live just to touch on this
0:09:48 as well so uh we are aware
0:09:51 that s c dawa happens to be live
0:09:54 at the exact same moment now with the
0:09:56 previous two the reason we chose seven
0:09:58 o'clock is because
0:09:59 we thought that it was bang in the
0:10:00 middle of the
0:10:02 um the two major channels so i think ef
0:10:05 that will usually go on quite early
0:10:07 um and they use uh in the previous two
0:10:10 streams they would do one and then
0:10:11 finish round about seven uh and then
0:10:14 essie dower would usually jump on about
0:10:16 half
0:10:16 eight nine o'clock um and so we picked
0:10:19 this time
0:10:20 just kind of be regular and just kind of
0:10:23 sit in the middle of these two
0:10:24 um but sc dawa are not uh consistent
0:10:27 with their timing and they kind of move
0:10:28 it about
0:10:29 obviously depending on the guests and
0:10:30 things like that and this their schedule
0:10:32 so there is a bit of overlap
0:10:33 alhamdulillah we still got 46 people
0:10:35 uh on the live with us so you know
0:10:39 that's not too bad i just want to kind
0:10:40 of reiterate as well uh if you haven't
0:10:42 already please do
0:10:43 subscribe we're nearly at 500
0:10:44 subscribers um and also
0:10:46 make sure to share this on your social
0:10:49 media on discord
0:10:50 anywhere and inshallah we can try and
0:10:53 get that number up a bit more
0:10:55 as well so um do you want to
0:10:58 we're just getting ones here so we've
0:11:00 got another one we've got a 684
0:11:03 from justin uh is
0:11:06 anybody so everyone seems to be happy we
0:11:09 don't
0:11:09 have any kind of disagreements there uh
0:11:11 should we move into
0:11:12 like a critique or do you want to just
0:11:15 kind of get some christians in and start
0:11:16 having a conversation
0:11:18 maybe let's just like go around i'll
0:11:21 give an explanation to
0:11:22 because we're asking the question does
0:11:24 the trinity make sense
0:11:26 um so let's give a chance for each one
0:11:27 of us to kind of run through it
0:11:29 yes or no and then explain why and then
0:11:32 we can
0:11:33 bring the christians on one by one i
0:11:35 guess and see what they have to say
0:11:37 about it
0:11:38 yeah that's fun yeah so in my analysis
0:11:42 and people who aren't familiar with my
0:11:44 stuff um
0:11:45 you can go and check out my channel the
0:11:47 muslim metaphysician
0:11:49 um i typically have debates or dialogues
0:11:52 with christian scholars
0:11:54 on this topic of the trinity incarnation
0:11:56 stuff like that
0:11:59 but now with respect to the question
0:12:01 does the trinity make sense
0:12:03 what does that even mean well for me it
0:12:05 means
0:12:06 can we make sense of it in the senses
0:12:09 that is it
0:12:10 rational is it logically comprehensible
0:12:12 can we
0:12:13 understand what it even means uh and
0:12:16 from my perspective
0:12:18 the answer is no because i think that
0:12:21 ultimately it is an illogical or
0:12:24 irrational doctrine and you know i don't
0:12:27 mean that
0:12:28 in an offensive way to my christian
0:12:30 friends or the people we're going to
0:12:31 have on there but
0:12:33 ultimately that is my understanding um
0:12:36 and so i i've made videos on the past on
0:12:40 things like uh the logical problem of
0:12:42 the trinity so i'm just going to briefly
0:12:44 explain what that is
0:12:45 and why my claim is that the the
0:12:48 doctrine of the trinity
0:12:49 is illogical so basically the logical
0:12:52 problem of the trinity and it's not
0:12:53 something that i made up
0:12:55 i'm going to read a quote from here in a
0:12:57 second after i explain what it is
0:12:59 but it's basically the idea
0:13:02 that the father is god the son is god
0:13:06 the holy spirit is god each of the
0:13:08 persons are not
0:13:10 each other so each of the persons are
0:13:12 not identical to one another
0:13:14 and yet there's only one god now why is
0:13:17 that a logical problem
0:13:19 the logical problem is the claim that we
0:13:21 have
0:13:22 three you can look out of it at it sort
0:13:25 of two different ways
0:13:26 we have three is god statements so we're
0:13:29 saying that these
0:13:30 three individuals the father is god the
0:13:33 son is god
0:13:34 the holy spirit is god now the question
0:13:36 is if we're saying
0:13:37 each one of these three is god
0:13:41 and it's an is of identity then it would
0:13:44 follow that the father is identical to
0:13:47 the sun
0:13:48 but yet we're also being told that the
0:13:50 father is not identical to the sun
0:13:53 now what do i mean by that it's similar
0:13:56 to
0:13:56 um for example my name is jake
0:13:59 brancatella
0:14:00 but i also go by the name the muslim
0:14:02 metaphysician
0:14:03 now if i say jake brancatella is the
0:14:06 muslim metaphysician
0:14:08 and are those two things the same thing
0:14:11 well of course in this
0:14:12 aspect jake brancatologist is the muslim
0:14:16 metaphysician so we are
0:14:17 identical to one another there's only
0:14:19 actually one thing
0:14:20 that's being described and those terms
0:14:23 just refer to the exact same thing which
0:14:25 is me
0:14:26 now in the case of the trinity we're
0:14:28 being told that the father is god
0:14:30 and the son is god so they're identical
0:14:33 to whatever god
0:14:34 is but yet they're not identical to one
0:14:37 another
0:14:38 and that seems to violate what's called
0:14:40 the law of identity
0:14:42 or leibniz's law because if two things
0:14:45 are identical to one another then they
0:14:48 have to share the same properties
0:14:50 that means whatever is true of one has
0:14:53 to be true of
0:14:54 the other thing if they are the same
0:14:56 thing which is god
0:14:58 now if they differ in terms of their
0:15:00 properties then they can't be the same
0:15:02 thing
0:15:04 so it seems to violate the law of
0:15:05 identity on the one hand
0:15:07 on the other hand if you say that it's
0:15:10 in what's called an
0:15:11 is of predication meaning it's a
0:15:13 property that's being ascribed to the
0:15:15 individuals
0:15:16 then it seems to result in tritheism
0:15:20 or there being three gods because of the
0:15:22 fact that you're saying
0:15:23 each one of these three things are not
0:15:26 identical to each other
0:15:27 and yet there's only one god but it
0:15:30 seems like there's three gods
0:15:32 and i give an example in my video
0:15:35 when i explain for example i say jake is
0:15:38 a human
0:15:39 john is a human james is a human jake is
0:15:42 not john
0:15:43 jake is not james john is not james
0:15:46 there's exactly one human well it
0:15:48 doesn't make sense because it seems to
0:15:49 follow from there being these three
0:15:52 individuals who are not each other that
0:15:54 there's exactly
0:15:56 three men not one man and i know people
0:16:00 seem
0:16:00 think that this is kind of a straw man
0:16:02 but actually saint gregory of nissa
0:16:04 gives this as an example when he
0:16:06 discusses the issue
0:16:08 and he actually argues that there's only
0:16:10 one man
0:16:11 instead of there being three men because
0:16:13 this is you know
0:16:14 sort of the analogy i'm just going to
0:16:16 read one quote
0:16:18 on this logical problem of the trinity
0:16:21 and then i'm going to pass it over to
0:16:22 the other brothers
0:16:24 in the introduction of a book which is
0:16:28 called uh the philosophical and
0:16:31 theological essays on the trinity
0:16:34 literally
0:16:34 in the intro on the first page
0:16:38 it says what theologians sometimes refer
0:16:41 to
0:16:41 as the threeness oneness problem of the
0:16:44 trinity
0:16:45 and what prob and what philosoph uh
0:16:47 philosophers call the logical problem of
0:16:49 the trinity
0:16:50 is well known it arises from the
0:16:53 conjunction of three central tenets
0:16:55 of the doctrine there is exactly one god
0:16:58 that's premise one premise two the
0:17:01 father son and holy spirit are not
0:17:03 identical which i explained they're not
0:17:05 identical to one another and premise
0:17:08 three the father son and holy spirit
0:17:11 are consubstantial meaning that they
0:17:13 have the same essence or being
0:17:16 so the only reason i'm reading that
0:17:17 quote is to show
0:17:19 that this three-ness oneness problem or
0:17:21 what philosophers
0:17:22 christian philosophers and this is
0:17:24 written this entire text is written by
0:17:27 christian academics um they call the
0:17:30 logical problem of the trinity it's not
0:17:32 something that
0:17:32 jake is making up as an as a biased
0:17:35 muslim
0:17:36 this is a problem that's well known in
0:17:38 the contemporary um
0:17:41 christian academic literature on the
0:17:43 subject
0:17:44 and so i wanted to just explain that so
0:17:47 that people don't think that this is
0:17:48 just something
0:17:50 that uh we are making up now i want to
0:17:52 pass it on to
0:17:54 uh the other brothers to give their
0:17:57 input
0:17:58 as to what they think about the trinity
0:18:00 whether or not you guys
0:18:02 think it makes sense and if it doesn't
0:18:04 um
0:18:05 sort of what your thoughts on that
0:18:06 actually are
0:18:09 yeah for that so is there anyone who
0:18:11 wants to go
0:18:12 first abdulrahman yeah
0:18:15 i can say something um yeah so so
0:18:19 yeah i wanted to to start off by saying
0:18:22 that um
0:18:23 uh first of all i might just just to lay
0:18:25 some groundwork for it for for the
0:18:26 discussion
0:18:28 we're having um and i've heard jake say
0:18:30 say this many times
0:18:32 uh we're not we're not really saying
0:18:35 that
0:18:36 you know if the trinity is incoherent
0:18:38 that means islam is true because a lot
0:18:40 of people just
0:18:40 right off the bat that's that's the kind
0:18:42 of impression that they're getting
0:18:43 we're just uh saying that there is an
0:18:46 apparent problem
0:18:47 apparent logical problem with the
0:18:49 trinity and uh
0:18:50 i'm not sure if jack jake went over this
0:18:53 but the difference between an apparent
0:18:55 problem and an actual logical problem is
0:18:56 that
0:18:57 you can accept that there is an apparent
0:18:59 problem like i can accept that there is
0:19:00 an apparent
0:19:01 logical problem within an islamic
0:19:03 doctrine for example
0:19:04 and the fact that it's an apparent
0:19:06 logical problem doesn't mean that it's
0:19:08 an actual problem
0:19:09 so by acknowledging that there is an
0:19:11 apparent logical problem with the
0:19:13 trinity i'm not
0:19:14 or by acknowledging that there's an
0:19:15 apparent problem with
0:19:17 one of the doctrines that i believe in
0:19:19 i'm not
0:19:20 kind of like saying that i don't believe
0:19:22 in it anymore what what you do
0:19:24 from then on is that you need to do some
0:19:25 work in order to show that
0:19:27 it's not an actual problem and that it's
0:19:30 merely an apparent problem
0:19:31 i mean that that would at least be your
0:19:33 objective if you're going to hold on to
0:19:35 the belief
0:19:36 and and and i think i think that's very
0:19:38 important to note because a lot of
0:19:40 people hesitate to acknowledge that
0:19:42 there is
0:19:42 a problem at all like they say there's
0:19:44 no problem in the first place
0:19:46 uh and and and i think that's just a
0:19:48 result of them not understanding what
0:19:50 an apparent problem is so so yeah i
0:19:54 thought that that would be important to
0:19:55 point out and the other thing
0:19:56 as i mentioned is that it's not like if
0:19:59 the trinity
0:20:00 is is false that like that means islam
0:20:03 is true like there are unitarian
0:20:04 christians right
0:20:06 there's judaism there there are other
0:20:07 beliefs that
0:20:09 kind of uh even within christianity uh
0:20:13 i mean probably not considered orthodoxy
0:20:15 but but people who do consider
0:20:16 themselves christians
0:20:17 are who are not trinitarians they kind
0:20:20 of have
0:20:21 ways to evade this problem um
0:20:24 yeah i i so i i think that's it for now
0:20:28 i i think that's just to get people to
0:20:30 to
0:20:31 to be more open to the idea that there
0:20:33 is an apparent
0:20:34 problem worth discussing you know we're
0:20:37 not saying that it's an actual problem
0:20:38 from
0:20:39 from from the outset we're just saying
0:20:40 there's an apparent problem that's worth
0:20:41 discussing and maybe
0:20:43 and there are a lot of proposed
0:20:44 solutions to this obviously we don't
0:20:46 think the solutions work
0:20:47 but that's the discussion that needs to
0:20:49 be had
0:20:54 yes definitely uh sharish do you want to
0:20:56 have a quick say on the matter
0:20:59 yeah just really quickly um i think one
0:21:02 of the
0:21:02 the ways uh obviously is the problem
0:21:05 that exists and i think obviously jake's
0:21:07 mentioned the problem
0:21:08 uh you know uh summarized it quite well
0:21:11 but the problem exists because of the
0:21:13 way the new testament text
0:21:16 or the way christians have interpreted
0:21:18 the new testament text
0:21:20 to to understand that jesus and the holy
0:21:23 ghost of the holy spirit
0:21:25 are actually gods but at the same time
0:21:27 trying to affirm that there is only one
0:21:29 being of god so there's this uh
0:21:32 inherent tension within the way it's
0:21:35 been read
0:21:36 and interpreted and so
0:21:39 the issue then becomes is there is an
0:21:41 obligation to try to reconcile this
0:21:44 it can't just be a question about well
0:21:46 it's mysterious because we're talking
0:21:48 about god
0:21:48 it's like for example if i turn around
0:21:50 and i said somebody knocking on the door
0:21:52 and then i i'm i tell the the person
0:21:55 who's knocking the door i say
0:21:56 it's both a man and also a fully man and
0:22:00 a fully child
0:22:01 yeah or is a person who's six foot tall
0:22:04 and five foot tall
0:22:06 now on a primer phaser just uh
0:22:09 you know understanding of that there's
0:22:10 an apparent contradiction
0:22:12 and so the onus is upon me
0:22:16 to try to explain how that contradiction
0:22:19 or the apparent contradiction is not a
0:22:22 logical impossibility
0:22:23 but a logical possibility so if somebody
0:22:26 turns around and tries to claim that
0:22:28 there's one god
0:22:29 while also acknowledging jesus and the
0:22:32 holy ghost and the father is being god
0:22:34 then they are under the obligation to
0:22:37 try to reconcile
0:22:39 otherwise it will fall into tritheism
0:22:42 yeah i believe in more than one god so i
0:22:44 think just
0:22:45 uh as a as a point is the mystery card
0:22:48 can't just be used saying that god's
0:22:50 unfair
0:22:50 fathomable and we cannot understand god
0:22:52 rather it has to be explained because of
0:22:55 the
0:22:56 propositions that are being uh placed in
0:22:59 in the concept of uh christian trinity
0:23:01 unitarianism
0:23:05 yeah so i think you guys have pretty
0:23:07 much covered most things
0:23:08 i'll just extend on what brother sharath
0:23:10 was saying a little bit there
0:23:12 so with regards to this idea that god is
0:23:14 fully of jesus
0:23:17 is fully god and fully human um
0:23:20 that you know as he kind of mentioned it
0:23:22 this is similar to saying
0:23:24 uh that someone is fully five
0:23:27 foot tall and fully six foot tall
0:23:29 there's there are qualities
0:23:31 um of being a human like all of us here
0:23:34 we're all human
0:23:35 and what every human has in common is
0:23:38 that they're not god we all have
0:23:39 finite attributes and that's what it
0:23:41 means to be fully human it means
0:23:44 to you know be a created being
0:23:47 and to not have any um
0:23:50 infinite qualities we are not
0:23:51 all-knowing we are not all-powerful
0:23:54 we are not any of these things um
0:23:57 and never have been and this is
0:24:00 quite clear to i think even the
0:24:02 christians that that is what makes us
0:24:04 human we
0:24:05 uh you know we we don't have any of the
0:24:07 attributes of god
0:24:09 um in infinite quantities whereas
0:24:12 here when you say that jesus allowed is
0:24:15 fully god that is to say that he has 100
0:24:19 all of these qualities and he's fully
0:24:21 human which is to say what we've just
0:24:23 said well what i've just said there
0:24:25 with regards to um you know not being
0:24:28 god you you've then got this issue with
0:24:30 your you're affirming
0:24:32 a conjunction of contradictory terms
0:24:34 you're saying
0:24:35 that jesus is a he is fully a
0:24:38 and he is fully not a that is he is
0:24:41 you know completely um you know the
0:24:44 quality of um
0:24:46 of being all-knowing so he he is
0:24:48 all-knowing and he is not all-knowing
0:24:50 simultaneously and then
0:24:52 obviously you can go through all of
0:24:53 these attributes and you're affirming
0:24:54 them and then denying them
0:24:56 in one breath as a conjunction um which
0:24:58 is
0:24:59 a complete contradiction and
0:25:02 obviously problematic for that reason um
0:25:05 so
0:25:06 i'll just kind of leave it there i i
0:25:07 don't want to kind of ramble on for too
0:25:09 long it's a shame there was um
0:25:10 a christian that was on here a moment
0:25:13 ago um
0:25:14 for some reason he feels it was
0:25:16 unreasonable to have an introduction
0:25:18 um kind of putting forward our thoughts
0:25:20 on the matter uh but yeah so should we
0:25:22 get some
0:25:23 people on so we've got uh someone called
0:25:26 i just want to invite mostly christians
0:25:28 here obviously we would prefer to have a
0:25:29 conversation specifically with people
0:25:31 who want to defend the trinity um but
0:25:34 we've got two people waiting in the back
0:25:35 now so we'll begin with the
0:25:36 the first person uh hello
0:25:41 hello ray guys how are you
0:25:44 uh yeah i'm doing i've got it so are you
0:25:46 um muslim or are you
0:25:48 christian what's your question you're
0:25:51 christian
0:25:54 what you're trying to say here is that
0:25:58 god and some cannot be
0:26:01 like one god at one point so it was just
0:26:04 wondering
0:26:05 if you're talking any other christian
0:26:07 about it or not
0:26:10 yeah so that's what we're doing here now
0:26:12 we're inviting and
0:26:14 apart from me apart from me are you are
0:26:16 you talking to somebody
0:26:18 who actually knows christian theology
0:26:21 are you just like bunch of muslim guys
0:26:23 trying to
0:26:24 discuss trinity i mean not being
0:26:26 offensive
0:26:27 no no no it's fine well the christian um
0:26:31 jake for example he does engage with
0:26:33 christians a lot if you check his
0:26:34 channel out no no
0:26:35 it's not like he engages with christians
0:26:38 right
0:26:38 it's about bringing a proper like
0:26:41 an academic and christian theology
0:26:44 trying to discuss it with him
0:26:46 are you trying to do that because what
0:26:48 you're doing is you're making
0:26:50 suppositions right you're supposing
0:26:52 things
0:26:53 that you think are right in christianity
0:26:56 but it's not as i say um
0:26:59 you know the quantum superposition right
0:27:03 an electron can be at two places at once
0:27:06 that's been confirmed
0:27:07 right no no i'm just giving a little bit
0:27:09 of an idea yeah
0:27:10 just kind of pause you there there's um
0:27:12 an interpretation of that called bohmian
0:27:14 mechanics
0:27:15 which doesn't suppose that at all um
0:27:23 what i'm trying to tell you is there are
0:27:25 dimensions
0:27:27 of everything right yep and you can't
0:27:29 you cannot be
0:27:30 talking about just one single dimension
0:27:33 you're trying to understand things from
0:27:34 one perspective
0:27:36 and you're completely ignoring the other
0:27:38 right
0:27:39 so an electron can be a wave and a
0:27:42 particle
0:27:42 at the same time an electron or
0:27:46 an elementary particle can be at two
0:27:48 places at once
0:27:50 how does it know apply to god well
0:27:53 first of all we are inviting people on
0:27:56 and uh the brother jake like i've just
0:27:59 mentioned
0:27:59 uh he's been engaging specifically with
0:28:02 christine academics
0:28:03 so that is he a christian
0:28:07 no no we're inviting christians on now
0:28:12 all i can say right now is four muslim
0:28:14 guys trying to talk about christianity
0:28:16 and their core beliefs
0:28:18 which doesn't seem really intellectual
0:28:20 to me
0:28:21 i'm being very respectful i'm not trying
0:28:23 to offend anyone right
0:28:25 i'm so sorry i think you're confused
0:28:26 like that no no no
0:28:28 i think you're inc you're confused we've
0:28:30 i've specifically made
0:28:31 the point that we want christians to
0:28:33 come on to engage with us that's why
0:28:35 you're here
0:28:36 i i said that explicitly right so i
0:28:39 don't
0:28:39 know is that is there any other question
0:28:42 on the meeting
0:28:47 the problem is i think what like
0:28:50 of course we should engage with
0:28:51 christians and we should be concerned
0:28:52 with what christian academics says
0:29:05 yeah let me just make this point so if
0:29:06 you go to jake's channel his channel is
0:29:08 called the muslim metaphysician he has
0:29:10 discussions
0:29:10 with christian academics phds
0:29:13 philosophers
0:29:14 who are specialized on the topic and in
0:29:17 jake's intro he actually
0:29:18 gave you quotes from christian
0:29:20 philosophers and
0:29:21 and and uh who actually affirm that
0:29:24 there is uh
0:29:26 something called the logical problem of
0:29:28 the trinity and that's a
0:29:29 a term coined not by muslims by
0:29:32 christians themselves
0:29:33 so of course we need to engage with
0:29:35 christians but
0:29:36 there's nothing inherently fallacious
0:29:39 about discussing an idea you don't
0:29:41 believe in if you do represent it well
0:29:43 so i think instead of focusing on the
0:29:45 fact that we're for muslims
0:29:46 you should focus on the substance that
0:29:48 we're putting forward whether the
0:29:50 content
0:29:50 is actually faithful to the christian
0:29:53 beliefs which is why
0:29:54 yusuf brother yusuf in the very
0:29:56 beginning he said if there are any
0:29:57 christians in the chat
0:29:59 drop a one if you think that we've
0:30:01 accurately represented the trinity
0:30:03 and and that's what a lot of christians
0:30:05 have done so we haven't misrepresented
0:30:08 the christian christian belief in any
0:30:09 sense if you think we have
0:30:11 then i think it will be more useful for
0:30:12 you to tell us how we've done that
0:30:14 than to just put it out there that we're
0:30:16 for muslims because i think that that's
0:30:18 that's irrelevant it's so we
0:30:21 we've put forward arguments the question
0:30:23 is now brother do you want to engage
0:30:25 with those arguments
0:30:26 or do you want to make this fallacious
0:30:28 claim that we're not
0:30:29 engaging with christians while inviting
0:30:32 christians and giving them priority
0:30:34 to discuss the trinity like your point
0:30:37 seems
0:30:39 superfluous and sort of irrelevant
0:30:42 you will think it sounds superfluous
0:30:44 you're the one who i don't know who
0:30:46 actually meeted me while i was in the
0:30:47 midst of a sentence it's because you
0:30:49 were interrupting him while he was
0:30:50 trying to talk
0:30:51 i wasn't i couldn't hear him well he was
0:30:54 talking
0:30:54 so we just grabbed you i couldn't hear
0:30:56 him he was cutting off and a wee bit
0:30:59 like so i tried to kind of maybe i
0:31:02 thought
0:31:02 he was trying to ask me a question and
0:31:04 all right but all right what i'm trying
0:31:06 to say is
0:31:06 if an electron can be a wave in a
0:31:09 particle
0:31:10 at one point at one time
0:31:13 how does not that not apply to god
0:31:17 well can i just answer that point
0:31:20 the problem is is that whenever we point
0:31:24 to
0:31:24 contingent realities uh these contingent
0:31:27 realities like for example the way
0:31:29 particle duality
0:31:31 they operate according to a law yeah
0:31:34 they are limited
0:31:35 and they are dependent and so if you
0:31:38 start to analogize
0:31:40 of the creator with things what we call
0:31:43 the creation or limited things
0:31:45 then he starts to break down for example
0:31:48 the way particle duality is
0:31:50 is part of the idea that
0:31:54 a photon is in multiple positions
0:31:58 until there's an observational
0:31:59 measurement that's taken
0:32:01 and then the wave function collapses
0:32:04 into a particular
0:32:05 into a particle yeah of light a photon
0:32:08 of light
0:32:09 so the wave function yeah or the wave
0:32:13 particle duality
0:32:14 only exists prior to
0:32:17 the observation of the thing yeah and
0:32:20 really to be honest that's why i think
0:32:22 even
0:32:22 joseph mentioned the bohmian uh
0:32:24 interpretation of quantum mechanics
0:32:26 because
0:32:27 it's really more of a theoretical thing
0:32:29 it's like for example schrodinger's cat
0:32:31 where you know there's a um
0:32:34 poison that releases within a box the
0:32:38 cat's inside the box
0:32:40 at what point does the cat can you say
0:32:42 the cat is dead well you'd say the cat
0:32:44 is alive and dead at
0:32:45 that moment until you open up the box
0:32:48 and look inside
0:32:49 and you'll be able to see whether the
0:32:51 cat is alive or dead
0:32:52 yeah so you know you gotta appreciate
0:32:56 that
0:32:56 the analogy doesn't work because the
0:32:59 analogy in this context
0:33:01 would be that after observation the
0:33:04 particle
0:33:05 is a hundred percent a particle and a
0:33:07 hundred percent
0:33:08 also a wave but the observation and the
0:33:11 measurement
0:33:11 affects that yeah so it and what we're
0:33:14 saying regards to the trinity or
0:33:16 what christians claim regards to the
0:33:18 trinity is that
0:33:19 god is free people who are exactly
0:33:24 god the god but at the same time are
0:33:27 differentiated
0:33:28 separate from one another because they
0:33:30 have different properties
0:33:32 and that's just one aspect of the
0:33:33 problem the other aspect of the problem
0:33:35 of the trinity would be the fact that
0:33:37 it's something called a saity which
0:33:39 means self-sufficiency or independence
0:33:41 is only granted to the father and not to
0:33:44 the other two
0:33:45 so i think just the the quantum
0:33:47 mechanics doesn't quite work
0:33:49 as an analogy to prove this and i can
0:33:52 share this it doesn't work
0:33:53 how i feel to understand how does it all
0:33:55 work well let me ask you this
0:33:58 you say you say that it's logically
0:34:01 impossible for god to be
0:34:03 um let's say all-knowing and not
0:34:04 all-knowing at the same time
0:34:06 right yes because all knowing
0:34:09 being five foot tall and six foot tall
0:34:11 at the same time that's impossible
0:34:13 logically is that right no no
0:34:17 let's let's let's go to the question
0:34:20 about god
0:34:21 so he's saying god can be all-knowing
0:34:23 and also at the same time ignorant
0:34:27 not ignorant of course well
0:34:30 if he i if god wishes to be why not
0:34:34 so god can be or both all knowing as a
0:34:37 necessary component
0:34:38 to be god and at the same time be
0:34:42 ignorant right what stop something
0:34:45 who are we to stop him it's not about no
0:34:48 no no it's not about us stopping him
0:34:49 brother it's about the fact that if
0:34:51 you're claiming that something
0:34:53 is all-knowing that means that you have
0:34:56 to negate
0:34:58 ignorance from him like for example is
0:35:00 it possible for god to have never
0:35:01 existed
0:35:02 when in the bible he's explicitly stated
0:35:05 as himself being the eternal the one
0:35:08 that without a beginning
0:35:10 and without an end so if you were to say
0:35:13 that god
0:35:13 could have never existed
0:35:16 you're you're going against the words of
0:35:18 the bible itself
0:35:20 which i'm not doing anything you are if
0:35:23 you if you
0:35:24 if you if you make a claim no no no i'm
0:35:27 not i'm telling you the necessary
0:35:29 consequence
0:35:31 you don't get to tell me if i'm going
0:35:32 against bible right
0:35:34 no if the bible says as what i'm trying
0:35:37 to tell you is
0:35:38 how does eternity how is eternity
0:35:41 measured
0:35:42 when you have the concept of time right
0:35:45 and when there is no concept of time
0:35:48 there is no concept of eternity
0:35:50 there is no concept of existence or
0:35:52 non-existence right
0:35:53 so god created time yes so his existence
0:35:56 for our senses started
0:35:59 when god ends time his existence
0:36:03 stops for our senses if god wants to be
0:36:06 ignorant he can be ignorant if god wants
0:36:09 to be
0:36:10 powerful he wants to be almighty all
0:36:12 knowing he can be that
0:36:14 i mean he doesn't really care about the
0:36:16 logic that you and i follow
0:36:19 if you say that how can an all-knowing
0:36:21 person be
0:36:22 ignorant well it's your logic i mean you
0:36:25 have to describe
0:36:26 what you mean by all knowing and what
0:36:28 you need mean by ignorant right
0:36:30 so when it comes to your god let's say
0:36:32 when it comes to allah
0:36:34 right what you do is you say
0:36:37 god says in the quran
0:36:44 right so the person who does something
0:36:48 that is not needed
0:36:49 right mumbai zarin they are the brothers
0:36:53 of satan
0:36:53 they are bad people right then you say
0:36:56 allah who summoned
0:36:57 god is someone right he doesn't need
0:37:01 anything
0:37:01 then why did he create the universe if
0:37:04 he created the universe
0:37:05 he didn't need that means he's putting
0:37:08 himself
0:37:09 in the same category of the people that
0:37:11 don't need anything
0:37:13 so that you don't need anything to do
0:37:16 you're bringing up so many points right
0:37:18 now
0:37:19 i don't want to cut you off but if you
0:37:21 start talking for two
0:37:22 three minutes and just bring it up point
0:37:24 after point we're not really going to be
0:37:26 able to address what you're saying
0:37:28 so let's try to keep my point okay i'm
0:37:30 going to i'm going to what i'm going to
0:37:31 do is i'm going to brief it
0:37:32 right here what i would like you to do
0:37:35 because when you first came on
0:37:37 you seem to think that we were either
0:37:39 misrepresenting the trinity or christian
0:37:41 belief
0:37:42 i'm not thinking about anything i have
0:37:44 no presumptions
0:37:45 about you guys well it seemed like you
0:37:48 did sir
0:37:49 but i want to give you a chance honestly
0:37:51 i want you to explain
0:37:53 us what the trinity is and explain to us
0:37:56 how it isn't illogical go ahead
0:38:01 all right okay now the trinity says
0:38:04 there is one being one existence that is
0:38:06 an absolute existence
0:38:08 right then that existence is divided
0:38:11 into three parts it could have been
0:38:13 divided into 100 parts a billion parts
0:38:15 it doesn't really matter
0:38:17 for human mind that was divided into
0:38:18 three parts one
0:38:20 as a divine being like the father right
0:38:23 the other as the holy spirit that
0:38:26 carries out the commandments and all
0:38:28 that in certain ways
0:38:29 as you have rojo in islam right so
0:38:33 similar to that
0:38:34 the third one is the human aspect
0:38:38 of god that wanted to teach humans
0:38:41 what it is like to be divine at the same
0:38:44 time
0:38:45 how you need to be a good human right so
0:38:47 that is the point
0:38:48 now you're saying how is it possible
0:38:51 then
0:38:52 that one god can be at three places at
0:38:54 once i mean
0:38:55 of course logically it can't be true
0:38:58 right it's not true
0:39:00 logically but that logic is the
0:39:02 construction
0:39:03 of the human mind now what i'm trying to
0:39:06 say is
0:39:07 what is stopping god from abandoning
0:39:10 your
0:39:11 and my logic and being and three places
0:39:15 at once what stops him
0:39:18 don't tell me that the the rules and
0:39:21 regulations that he created and all that
0:39:23 because he doesn't need to follow them
0:39:24 he doesn't follow them that's the
0:39:26 miracles
0:39:27 that tell us he doesn't need to follow
0:39:29 any logic any rules and regulations
0:39:31 because i'm giving an example here if
0:39:34 you look at the incident
0:39:36 of the moon splitting in the lifetime of
0:39:39 prophet muhammad
0:39:41 what does that tell you that god doesn't
0:39:43 really need
0:39:44 to follow any rules in regulation what
0:39:46 are miracles miracles are those
0:39:48 exceptions
0:39:49 so why does god need
0:39:52 do not show any miracle when it comes to
0:39:54 being at three places at once
0:39:56 and three forms at once okay so the prob
0:39:59 the problem is not
0:40:00 sir the problem is not that god exists
0:40:03 at
0:40:03 as three forms in three different places
0:40:06 at once that's not the problem
0:40:08 let me let me get down to what i think
0:40:11 the real issue
0:40:12 is you mentioned earlier when you first
0:40:14 started talking you said
0:40:15 each one of these three things are parts
0:40:19 okay now that's for me
0:40:22 already you're starting out with
0:40:23 problematic language
0:40:25 do you think that each one of the
0:40:27 persons are a third
0:40:28 or a part of god or are they each fully
0:40:31 god
0:40:33 they're all fully god okay then why'd
0:40:35 you say parts
0:40:37 they are god for you and i to understand
0:40:41 three different versions of something
0:40:43 right now that is equally powerful
0:40:46 well okay i'll say versions i'll not say
0:40:48 parts anymore then
0:40:50 how does that sound to you okay so three
0:40:52 different versions
0:40:54 so each one of them are the same being
0:40:56 right
0:40:57 yeah okay so three different realms
0:41:01 okay so the father and the son are the
0:41:02 same god but different
0:41:04 persons would you say that no no they're
0:41:07 the same thing
0:41:08 right and they do have similar
0:41:11 properties that we
0:41:13 you and i would comprehend right to
0:41:16 teach us something else
0:41:18 but they're the same people they're the
0:41:20 same god
0:41:21 okay but do they have any properties
0:41:23 that are different
0:41:24 from one another it doesn't really
0:41:27 matter what properties they have
0:41:29 they're just in three forms and three
0:41:31 versions
0:41:32 it does it does because it doesn't
0:41:35 really matter
0:41:36 well i'm explaining to you i'm gonna
0:41:38 explain to you why it does matter
0:41:39 because
0:41:40 saying this in logic implies what's
0:41:43 called
0:41:43 numerical identity so if you're
0:41:45 comparing what are two things
0:41:48 and you say that they're the same thing
0:41:50 meaning that they're the same god
0:41:52 and yet they differ in their properties
0:41:54 they can't be the same god
0:41:56 but different persons that's the whole
0:41:58 problem
0:42:00 i'm not saying they're different in
0:42:01 their properties okay so they're
0:42:03 so the father and son don't differ in
0:42:06 any way
0:42:06 in any properties they're the same they
0:42:10 just
0:42:10 are apparently different to you and i to
0:42:12 make you and i understand
0:42:14 what it is like to be divine what it's
0:42:17 like to be
0:42:18 human and what it's like to be something
0:42:20 in between
0:42:21 did the sun die on the cross or did the
0:42:23 father
0:42:24 it's not about that it's about the
0:42:26 apparent thing that is made apparent to
0:42:28 you
0:42:29 people do believe god cannot die it was
0:42:32 made to look like
0:42:33 no no no no no no that's not what you
0:42:34 and i it's not my point is i'm trying to
0:42:37 point out
0:42:38 that you as a christian by the bible
0:42:41 itself as a faithful christian
0:42:43 that's not necessary i need to follow
0:42:44 100 of bible
0:42:46 yes but you what you have to say is you
0:42:48 have to say
0:42:49 that there are properties that
0:42:51 distinguish amongst the father the son
0:42:53 and the holy spirit
0:42:54 otherwise you run the risk of modalism
0:42:57 of collapsing
0:42:58 the persons and them all being exactly
0:43:00 the same thing
0:43:01 that's not it's only based on the logic
0:43:04 that
0:43:05 the human mind is constructed the human
0:43:07 construct
0:43:08 is something else the divine construct
0:43:10 is something else
0:43:11 you don't think there's anything
0:43:12 different between the father and the son
0:43:14 nothing not inherently but apparently
0:43:18 for you and i
0:43:19 i it might be so when jesus said only
0:43:22 the father
0:43:23 knows the hour and he made it explicitly
0:43:26 about this one person of the trinity
0:43:30 you know from jesus's own mouth there
0:43:32 there is a quality how do you know that
0:43:34 it's from his own mouth do you believe
0:43:38 do you have as you have the if hadith
0:43:41 hadith why can bible not be the even
0:43:44 model
0:43:44 i thought you just said you have to
0:43:46 believe a hundred percent of the bible
0:43:48 i didn't say that i'll challenge you so
0:43:51 what's your position on the bible you
0:43:52 don't have to believe in that it doesn't
0:43:54 it doesn't really concern anyone what i
0:43:55 say about the bible but what i'm trying
0:43:57 to say is
0:43:58 we're we're dealing with you we only can
0:44:00 deal with your personal beliefs we can't
0:44:02 deal with somebody so
0:44:03 if you're a muslim are you supposed to
0:44:05 be believing in quran and hadith
0:44:07 completely blindly
0:44:09 what the quran is so we believe
0:44:13 we believe that the quran is the word of
0:44:14 god
0:44:16 how do you know that we don't believe
0:44:18 there's anything
0:44:19 weak in the quran what about
0:44:23 christ
0:44:29 there are even logical fallacies in the
0:44:31 quran hold on a second sir
0:44:32 you're you're going on to other points
0:44:35 that are not related
0:44:36 i'm not i'm trying to make a point that
0:44:39 your presumptions
0:44:40 are not right you can't have
0:44:43 presumptions about the trinity have
0:44:45 nothing to do with the quran you can't
0:44:48 you can't
0:44:48 have one set of rules for allah and the
0:44:51 other set of rules for the christians
0:44:54 what is this rule specifically that
0:44:55 you're saying that we're holding uh
0:44:57 differently for the quran
0:44:58 there are no rules that's what i'm
0:44:59 trying to say but what you're trying to
0:45:00 do is you're saying
0:45:02 there is a logical fallacy that god
0:45:04 cannot be
0:45:05 the god the son and the holy spirit i
0:45:07 say yes he can
0:45:09 no nothing stops him your rule of
0:45:11 numerical identity and all that it
0:45:13 doesn't really concern god it doesn't
0:45:15 really matter
0:45:16 okay we're not gonna
0:45:20 so god can break in his own being he can
0:45:23 break
0:45:24 all the rules of logic the law of
0:45:26 non-contradiction
0:45:27 excluded middle and law of identity
0:45:29 anything he cannot be evil
0:45:31 can god be evil he can create them he
0:45:34 created them
0:45:35 can god be evil aye
0:45:38 he can't so who who who did who did god
0:45:41 create sorry who did god create you
0:45:43 mentioned
0:45:44 the rules the universe all right so
0:45:46 you've got to create the universe
0:45:48 so what is there anything is there
0:45:50 anything that distinguishes
0:45:52 therefore your theology to let's say
0:45:56 uh polytheism so if somebody turns
0:45:58 around and says well i'm a polytheist
0:46:01 and i believe that god can exist
0:46:04 in multiple beings of gods there is a
0:46:07 zeus there is the thor whatever it is
0:46:09 and if somebody turns around and says
0:46:11 well that apparently goes against
0:46:13 rationality you'd say well yeah but they
0:46:15 live in a different realm where they can
0:46:17 be both
0:46:18 god and multiple beings at the same time
0:46:21 with
0:46:21 without feelings they can say that they
0:46:23 can't have any problem with that
0:46:25 i've got no problem with that but when
0:46:27 it comes to zeus
0:46:29 yeah when it comes to zeus and poseidon
0:46:31 and thor
0:46:32 right those people they didn't really
0:46:34 actually claim to be the almighty god
0:46:37 they created no no i'm just giving that
0:46:39 as an example
0:46:40 as you're right of course i
0:46:44 have no problem with that right okay so
0:46:47 you don't have to
0:46:48 important yeah oh do you have a problem
0:46:52 do you have a problem or do you have an
0:46:54 issue where
0:46:55 there is something you cannot say about
0:46:57 god
0:46:59 because it would be irrational do you
0:47:00 mean that is there anything exactly
0:47:03 about god
0:47:04 yeah you say it's logically impossible
0:47:07 can we just say whatever we want
0:47:22 i'm just giving them freedom he can
0:47:24 literally do whatever he wants
0:47:26 so can god cease to cease to exist
0:47:30 right can god cease to exist
0:47:33 right now he can but how does that
0:47:36 existence really matter
0:47:37 how does that can he he can that's what
0:47:40 i'm saying yes he can so god can cease
0:47:42 to exist
0:47:44 right you're making god not a necessary
0:47:46 existence you're making him a possible
0:47:48 are you making him unnecessary existence
0:47:50 by your logic but no no
0:47:52 it's not it's by the words of god
0:47:55 himself
0:47:56 he refers to himself oh do you know have
0:47:58 you speak have you spoken to god how do
0:48:00 you know what does he say he's a
0:48:01 necessary being
0:48:02 oh have you spoken to god
0:48:10 here is that we can't really make any
0:48:12 headway in this discussion because if
0:48:13 you're saying that
0:48:14 you know we can say whatever we want
0:48:16 about god and god doesn't
0:48:18 have to you know adhere to our you know
0:48:20 uh um
0:48:22 you know way of reasoning even though he
0:48:25 created our
0:48:25 reason and our logic then basically
0:48:28 anyone can say that they believe
0:48:29 anything about god
0:48:30 anyone can make any kind of religious
0:48:32 claims and we really
0:48:34 have no lake to stand on to try to
0:48:36 critique their religion and then
0:48:37 therefore there's no really there's no
0:48:39 real difference between truth and
0:48:40 falsehood
0:48:41 so any critique you launch against islam
0:48:43 i'll just tell you well you know what
0:48:44 it's just god any critique i launch
0:48:46 against christianity well you know what
0:48:47 it's god
0:48:48 and we could just end the discussion
0:48:50 isn't that how islam goes
0:48:54 it's what you're doing right now if it's
0:48:56 how islam goes then
0:48:57 i find that problematic but it's what
0:48:59 you're doing right now what you're
0:49:00 basically saying is that you can
0:49:02 literally say anything about god
0:49:04 it can be apart from what we say apart
0:49:06 from what we say
0:49:07 you can have incoherent beliefs and i
0:49:09 literally cannot launch
0:49:10 a rational attack or critique on your
0:49:13 belief
0:49:14 because you can why are you limiting god
0:49:16 why are you limiting god in any way
0:49:18 we're not limiting when you what is
0:49:21 illogical what is illogical according to
0:49:23 you
0:49:23 for god when you said when you said for
0:49:26 example why do you believe that
0:49:27 god's a necessary being well firstly we
0:49:30 don't presuppose a religious
0:49:31 text what we do is we try to look at the
0:49:34 reality around us and fusion that's
0:49:37 philosophy not reality
0:49:38 using using using the rational mind
0:49:41 come to certain conclusions the fact
0:49:44 that contingent beings
0:49:46 the eye things that are not necessary in
0:49:47 their existence
0:49:49 require necessary foundation please
0:49:52 necessarily be well you know you can say
0:49:55 it's it's philosophy
0:49:56 but the thing is is that everything that
0:49:58 we make a decision about which we
0:50:00 believe is important in life for example
0:50:02 if i go to the doctor
0:50:04 and i say to the doctor you know i've
0:50:06 got this and this
0:50:07 symptoms and if i think that the doctor
0:50:09 just closes his eyes and feels
0:50:11 what he feels in his heart as the answer
0:50:14 and then tells me to take ex-medicine
0:50:16 or whatever it is because he just felt
0:50:18 it in his heart i wouldn't trust him
0:50:21 i would want a person to undertake some
0:50:23 rational
0:50:24 intellectual approach in order to give
0:50:27 me a decision about what my medical
0:50:29 condition is
0:50:30 similarly if i'm walking across the road
0:50:32 i'm going to look both ways and i'm
0:50:33 going to judge using my mind
0:50:35 if there's any vehicles going past
0:50:37 because that's how we operate
0:50:39 now when we're talking about the issue
0:50:40 of salvation about
0:50:42 guidance from god suddenly we don't you
0:50:45 know
0:50:46 leave religion out of it you know
0:50:48 thinking process and rationality out of
0:50:50 it
0:50:51 you know and just say anything goes
0:50:53 rather this is like the most fundamental
0:50:55 question to human existence what is our
0:50:57 purpose
0:50:58 how do we understand belief in a creator
0:51:00 does a creator exist
0:51:02 therefore it requires an intellectual
0:51:05 process
0:51:06 you know so it's very difficult to argue
0:51:08 that you have to
0:51:09 abandon an intellectual process when it
0:51:11 comes to quote-unquote religious
0:51:13 claims yeah guidance from god but use it
0:51:17 in every other aspect of our life i just
0:51:19 i don't think that's i but at the end of
0:51:21 the day i think there is an impasse in
0:51:23 essence because you're saying that we
0:51:24 can't use rationality at all
0:51:26 there's just a relationship we can't use
0:51:28 rationality see this is the problem
0:51:30 you're not trying to understand what i'm
0:51:31 saying
0:51:32 i'm saying you cannot bound god by any
0:51:36 rules but you're bounding him by the
0:51:38 rule that he can do
0:51:40 whatever he wants even if it's
0:51:42 completely so how is that bounding him
0:51:43 by rules
0:51:45 let's try this let's try this if i tell
0:51:46 you like
0:51:48 if i if i let's just grant that like
0:51:50 let's say that trinity is is not
0:51:52 incoherent let's say it's a logical
0:51:53 possibility right
0:51:55 uh i'm not saying it's a logical
0:51:57 possibility sorry
0:51:58 okay okay okay it's a possibility okay
0:52:01 so let's say it's a possibility let's
0:52:02 say it's a possibility
0:52:04 let's just right now for the sake of
0:52:06 argument say that's the case
0:52:07 uh isn't there a difference between
0:52:09 ontology and epistemology so let's say
0:52:12 it is possible that there
0:52:13 is a flying spaghetti monster living
0:52:16 behind the moon
0:52:17 there's a difference between that if it
0:52:19 is indeed an ontological reality and
0:52:21 between the epistemology through which i
0:52:23 reach
0:52:24 reasonable belief about that fact so if
0:52:27 it is the case that it is possible that
0:52:29 there is a flying spaghetti monster
0:52:31 living behind the moon
0:52:32 that doesn't mean that i am justified in
0:52:34 believing believing that there is indeed
0:52:37 a flying spaghetti monster behind the
0:52:38 moon i guess what i'm saying here is
0:52:40 that there's a difference between even
0:52:41 if you're gonna just open it all up and
0:52:42 say you know
0:52:43 anything is possible for god there's a
0:52:45 difference between that
0:52:47 you know and and muslims we have we have
0:52:50 we have an understanding that god
0:52:51 isn't fully comprehensible as well right
0:52:54 god is not conceivable we don't say he's
0:52:56 illogical
0:52:56 he's not conceivable but that doesn't
0:52:58 mean that we can believe
0:53:00 illogical things about him so there's a
0:53:02 difference between the epistemology
0:53:04 that you use to derive beliefs about god
0:53:07 or to justify your beliefs about god
0:53:09 and between ontology and you saying that
0:53:11 you know what it's possible for this you
0:53:13 know
0:53:14 weird counter-intuitive thing to exist
0:53:16 in some possible world
0:53:18 those are two different things so what
0:53:20 makes i think we're concerned with the
0:53:21 epistemological point here
0:53:22 we're also concerned with like the
0:53:24 metaphysics but i don't think you're
0:53:25 really concerned with that
0:53:27 so let's let's talk about the
0:53:28 epistemology what justifies your belief
0:53:31 in these apparently counter-intuitive
0:53:34 and and uh from a human perspective
0:53:38 not very likely or plausible thing about
0:53:41 god
0:53:43 so you think my beliefs as they call it
0:53:45 right my beliefs are incoherent
0:53:48 with the human understanding of the
0:53:49 universe right do you think god is
0:53:51 physical
0:53:55 he asked a question sorry about he asked
0:53:57 the question
0:53:58 what justifies your conception of god
0:54:04 okay so are you a trinitarian if i can
0:54:06 if i can ask
0:54:08 how does that matter if i'm okay if i'm
0:54:11 asked a different question
0:54:12 i know what you're trying to say no no
0:54:13 you're not you're not no no no you
0:54:15 didn't let me finish
0:54:16 all right camden camden what i'm saying
0:54:18 is how does it matter to the question
0:54:21 like calm down it doesn't matter to the
0:54:23 question what i'm trying to answer right
0:54:24 now
0:54:25 i the discussion is about trinity right
0:54:27 obviously i'm not talking about that
0:54:28 right now
0:54:29 what i'm saying is how does it matter if
0:54:31 i say for me
0:54:33 god is not bound by anything god is free
0:54:41 the issue is well the the you're
0:54:44 you're quite happy to say that like the
0:54:46 hindus can
0:54:48 you're sort of like including hindu
0:54:50 thought in there and like god could be a
0:54:52 million what's
0:54:52 to stop him from being a million person
0:54:54 so how can we say that hinduism is
0:54:56 incoherent
0:54:57 um but what we say is wrong so everyone
0:55:01 is
0:55:01 allowed to say whatever we want but
0:55:04 whatever we've said
0:55:11 could we be visibly right there
0:55:14 i'm not saying you're wrong what i'm
0:55:16 trying to do is could we why are you
0:55:18 limiting god why are you limiting god
0:55:21 it's not limiting
0:55:22 anything because the language god says
0:55:25 in the bible
0:55:26 god says in the bible that he cannot lie
0:55:29 that he cannot deny himself are you
0:55:31 familiar with these scriptures no he
0:55:33 can't
0:55:34 okay he won't what is what does hebrews
0:55:36 6 18
0:55:37 say well if you talk about bible and
0:55:40 hebrews and all that right what i'm
0:55:42 asking you is
0:55:43 if quran says what does that mean
0:55:46 we're talking about we're talking about
0:55:48 the bible even and your concept of god
0:55:50 that's the same thing that i'm trying to
0:55:52 say
0:55:53 yeah but when we say when we say when we
0:55:55 say god can do
0:55:56 all things yeah we don't say that he can
0:55:59 do
0:56:00 logically impossible things like cease
0:56:02 to exist
0:56:03 we say where does it say we separate
0:56:06 we separate for example we separate
0:56:08 three things isn't it free propositions
0:56:10 yeah propositional statements
0:56:12 logically necessary which means has to
0:56:15 be
0:56:16 logically possible which means could be
0:56:18 and logically impossible which
0:56:20 can't be yeah so we we have these three
0:56:23 propositions
0:56:24 now here's the prop here's the point is
0:56:26 that in the quran
0:56:27 it says that god is a summoned
0:56:30 yeah self-sufficient independent then
0:56:33 you've got another verse that turns
0:56:35 around and says
0:56:36 that there is no that god can do all
0:56:38 things yeah
0:56:39 now how do you how do you then uh you
0:56:42 know
0:56:43 uh reconcile the conflict if a person
0:56:46 then says
0:56:47 well can not god cease to to exist
0:56:51 can god cause himself to die yeah
0:56:53 because that would
0:56:54 contradict a sayety i assumed in
0:56:57 self-sufficiency
0:56:58 and according to you if you take this
0:57:01 verse shape to mean all
0:57:03 logical possible logically impossible
0:57:05 things as well
0:57:07 including this premise of god dying
0:57:10 that wouldn't make any sense so the idea
0:57:12 would be is that
0:57:13 actually when it means shay thing here
0:57:16 it means all logical possible things
0:57:19 that's how muslims reconcile it
0:57:21 and uh this is it
0:57:25 if you if you want to know the tafsir
0:57:27 i'll tell you the tafsir at the end yeah
0:57:28 we'll put it in the chat
0:57:30 for you also among the sahaja yogis it's
0:57:34 a very common christian understanding of
0:57:36 omnipotence it's not
0:57:37 i mean it doesn't really matter
0:57:41 it means that he can you actually
0:57:43 although you are you actually a
0:57:44 christian or you just be
0:57:45 playing devil what do you think by now
0:57:47 what do you think
0:57:49 like a traditional christian right
0:57:52 okay i'm not a traditional christian
0:57:55 right right right so
0:57:56 we're gonna need to we're gonna need to
0:57:58 close this soon i mean we
0:57:59 we appreciate having you on and the
0:58:01 discussion was
0:58:03 was fun although not very fruitful but
0:58:05 um
0:58:06 but if you could just very briefly go
0:58:08 back to that question i asked you let's
0:58:10 just say everything is possible for the
0:58:12 sake of argument because
0:58:13 in order to convince you otherwise that
0:58:14 that's that's like an uh
0:58:16 an entirely different project but let's
0:58:18 say everything is possible
0:58:20 what justifies you in believing specific
0:58:23 possible things right like there are
0:58:25 things even if everything is possible
0:58:27 the the spaghetti monster analogy i gave
0:58:29 you
0:58:30 that's possible what would justify me in
0:58:32 believing such a thing so
0:58:34 taking that back to the trinity what
0:58:36 would justify you in believing in that
0:58:39 is it the mere fact that it's a logical
0:58:41 possibility
0:58:43 well no it's not just that because i'm
0:58:45 not limiting god
0:58:46 to existing in one form or the other
0:58:49 right what i'm trying to say is god is
0:58:51 not limited
0:58:52 that is the basic premise let's say i
0:58:55 agree with you for the sake of argument
0:58:57 that that because i don't think it's a
0:58:59 limitation first of all i think there
0:59:00 are things
0:59:01 like if you say god can become a frog or
0:59:04 whatever i mean or god can stop being
0:59:06 god
0:59:06 that's not you i think that's the
0:59:08 limitation when we talk about not
0:59:10 limiting god we're talking about like
0:59:12 when you're talking about omnipotence
0:59:13 you're talking about like a great making
0:59:16 property
0:59:16 so you don't say god for example can lie
0:59:18 because he's omnipotent
0:59:20 but putting that aside let's say i agree
0:59:22 with you that god can do everything i'm
0:59:23 being very generous here
0:59:24 let's say the trinity isn't logically
0:59:26 incoherent how do you bridge the gap
0:59:28 between something being a mere
0:59:30 possibility to something being actually
0:59:33 plausible
0:59:34 and a reasonable rational belief
0:59:38 the same way that you can believe that
0:59:40 moon was split into two
0:59:42 by no matter there's nothing logically
0:59:44 incoherent
0:59:58 one plausible explanation of how moon
1:00:01 can be split into two
1:00:02 no no no no what do you mean that's a
1:00:04 difficult project because you need to
1:00:06 understand that the laws of nature are
1:00:07 contingent i don't think you understand
1:00:08 that do you understand
1:00:09 the world i don't
1:00:13 contingent understand that's what you're
1:00:14 trying to say and then you're telling me
1:00:16 the moon was split into the building
1:00:17 otherwise is it logically terrible tell
1:00:20 me what is it
1:00:22 tell me specifically what it is about
1:00:24 the moon splitting that is contradictory
1:00:26 tell me how does it happen what is the
1:00:28 logical explanation for it
1:00:30 we don't need one based on your
1:00:32 explanation of
1:00:33 your based on my see that there that is
1:00:35 the problem
1:00:36 now imagine i just joined the call i
1:00:39 didn't tell you any of the things i told
1:00:41 you i'm doing that
1:00:42 i'm doing that to show the absurdity in
1:00:46 what you're saying
1:00:47 that's the whole point i'm absurd you're
1:00:49 the one who believes in a flying donkey
1:01:09 saying that i'm asking you if there can
1:01:10 be a flying donkey
1:01:12 yeah yeah that can be flying down yeah
1:01:15 yeah
1:01:15 of course of course that can be of
1:01:17 course your book says that so
1:01:19 so no finish my point let me finish my
1:01:22 points
1:01:23 when i turned around and i talked about
1:01:25 these three propositions yeah logically
1:01:27 necessary logically possible logically
1:01:30 impossible i don't think you've
1:01:31 understood
1:01:32 what these mean yeah so for example we
1:01:35 know practically
1:01:36 you can't travel at the speed of light
1:01:39 yeah so practically
1:01:40 that's impossible as we'd call it but
1:01:44 that's not what we would consider or
1:01:47 call a logical
1:01:48 impossibility that's still in the realms
1:01:51 of logically possible
1:01:53 yeah because when we're talking about
1:01:55 contingent realities or even what we
1:01:57 call laws of nature
1:01:59 we're talking about things that we've
1:02:00 arrived at through induction
1:02:02 which could have been otherwise yeah so
1:02:05 therefore anything that we consider
1:02:08 a miracle we're not calling logically
1:02:10 impossible things that have occurred
1:02:12 what we're saying is that they still
1:02:14 within the realms of logical possibility
1:02:17 even though they're beyond human
1:02:19 productive capacity
1:02:20 and so as a result god has the ability
1:02:24 to undertake certain actions like
1:02:26 raising people from the dead
1:02:28 even though that's physically impossible
1:02:30 for human beings but it's not
1:02:31 logically impossible now that's a
1:02:34 different
1:02:35 category abu to talking about more than
1:02:38 one god
1:02:39 or god ceasing to exist this category
1:02:43 is called a logical impossibility
1:02:46 yeah or when we say god has to be a
1:02:49 necessary being
1:02:50 we're saying this category or this
1:02:52 propositional statement
1:02:53 means that it is logically necessary
1:02:56 for god to be a necessary being yeah so
1:02:59 you need to separate what we mean by
1:03:01 logical possible logical necessary
1:03:03 logical impossible
1:03:05 in this discussion you're not familiar
1:03:07 with this particular terminology
1:03:09 and so you're you're mixing two
1:03:12 different things
1:03:14 together yeah now going back to what
1:03:16 abdul rahman said
1:03:18 abdul rahman asked you why do you
1:03:20 justify
1:03:21 your particular belief in conception in
1:03:23 god as opposed to other conceptions and
1:03:25 beliefs in god
1:03:30 um i i i think we've got guests waiting
1:03:33 so uh
1:03:34 yeah yeah it's been very nice talking to
1:03:36 you we've enjoyed talking to you
1:03:38 hopefully we can talk about it we'll
1:03:39 join again did you not hear what i said
1:03:42 and we didn't actually there's a problem
1:03:45 in my mic then
1:03:46 i guess oh okay nope we'll hear you if
1:03:48 you want to speak to you next time
1:03:49 anyway
1:03:50 yeah thanks a lot for joining us thanks
1:03:52 a lot take care okay
1:03:53 bye-bye and we have another guest
1:03:58 uh this is neo yes hello neil can you
1:04:01 hear me
1:04:01 hey welcome can you hear me we can
1:04:05 so just to kind of get an idea uh neil
1:04:08 so what
1:04:08 um are you a particular kind of
1:04:10 christian uh what the nomination are
1:04:12 your non-denominational or
1:04:14 just give us a bit of info on uh where
1:04:16 you stand with regards to
1:04:18 christianity yeah yeah i'm an oriental
1:04:20 orthodox christian so i'm part of the
1:04:21 what's called the oriental orthodox
1:04:23 church one of the three apostolic
1:04:24 churches and i believe in the
1:04:27 actual trinity i don't know what that
1:04:29 stuff was that we just heard for the
1:04:31 past uh 45 minutes but that was
1:04:33 uh scary i can assure you that that's
1:04:36 not the trinity that's
1:04:38 some type of uh hindu nonsense or
1:04:41 something
1:04:41 i don't know i don't know where he got
1:04:44 those ideas from
1:04:45 i think he's uh an independent thinker
1:04:47 so i don't think he's
1:04:48 um i think he's he's not
1:04:51 limiting himself as much as he's trying
1:04:53 not to to limit god
1:04:55 yeah yeah yeah so um
1:04:58 with regards to the were you here when
1:05:00 we gave um
1:05:02 forward the idea of the trinity as we
1:05:04 understood it
1:05:05 um did you feel like that first part was
1:05:07 fair and then um
1:05:09 is there anything you would like to say
1:05:10 with regards to the particular critiques
1:05:13 uh we gave yeah i listened for
1:05:16 just a short moment i will say that
1:05:20 um i'll say your objections are based
1:05:23 forgive me but your objection
1:05:24 are based on some misconceptions about
1:05:26 what we actually believe
1:05:28 uh when we say trinity we believe that
1:05:29 these three are one we believe that
1:05:32 each of the hypostases and god are of
1:05:34 course fully god i think you
1:05:36 mentioned that um i would of course
1:05:39 disagree that that it's illogical we can
1:05:41 get into that if you'd like
1:05:42 and we believe that these three
1:05:43 hypostases are each identical to god's
1:05:46 essence
1:05:47 identical to god's essence but distinct
1:05:49 from each other
1:05:50 and so they're not different between
1:05:52 each other there's not something in who
1:05:54 we call the father
1:05:56 that is not in who we call the son and
1:05:58 there's only one who
1:06:00 there aren't three who's we believe
1:06:02 three hypostases each identical
1:06:04 to the essence distinct to each other by
1:06:06 relation
1:06:07 and that one simply comes from the other
1:06:10 and another comes from
1:06:12 both in a sense but they're identical in
1:06:15 essence
1:06:16 and there aren't three essences uh
1:06:18 there's one essence
1:06:20 there's one knowledge one will one uh
1:06:23 you could say
1:06:24 set of attributes uh and we can say that
1:06:27 in many different senses so to say the
1:06:29 least
1:06:30 that's what we believe we can get into
1:06:31 it if you like yeah so when you say
1:06:33 one knowledge um but then in
1:06:37 the by i've already made mention to this
1:06:38 um so what are your thoughts with
1:06:40 regards to the quote where jesus
1:06:42 where he makes the claim that only god
1:06:44 knows the hour
1:06:45 which suggests a distinction in
1:06:47 knowledge as well
1:06:50 by just a surface level interpretation
1:06:52 it seems that that's what he's saying
1:06:53 that he
1:06:54 he actually does lack the knowledge uh
1:06:56 but we
1:06:57 have to make sure that we read the
1:06:59 scriptures through a certain lens and so
1:07:00 we believe as
1:07:01 orthodox christians and even catholics
1:07:03 believe this uh that that is an
1:07:05 allegorical passage
1:07:06 so what christ is really saying there is
1:07:08 something much deeper
1:07:09 and it's actually a verse about the
1:07:11 trinity the verse about the father we
1:07:13 call the father
1:07:15 causing his son to be or i should say uh
1:07:19 it's it's talking about the begetting of
1:07:21 the sun or of the logos
1:07:23 um in that it's not that the sun doesn't
1:07:27 know that he doesn't have the knowledge
1:07:29 but it's that
1:07:30 the father is the first cause and he has
1:07:33 the knowledge not of himself but
1:07:35 by the father causing him to be it's
1:07:37 kind of complicated we can get into it
1:07:38 though
1:07:39 it has to do with the concept of the
1:07:40 logos in short so
1:07:42 we do have ancient uh you know which you
1:07:45 would call taft seers of this
1:07:47 of this uh verse mark 13 32 matthew 24
1:07:50 36
1:07:51 yeah so so earlier when you were
1:07:54 explaining the trinity you
1:07:56 can you just go over that again because
1:07:58 i was a bit confused about what you said
1:08:01 sure so in short we believe that
1:08:04 god is one we believe in one god one
1:08:06 consciousness
1:08:08 we believe that there is god in god's
1:08:11 logos
1:08:12 okay there's the self in god the very
1:08:15 true god
1:08:17 and there is his knowledge of himself
1:08:20 and god and his knowledge are really
1:08:23 distinct
1:08:24 though his knowledge is fully his
1:08:26 essence
1:08:28 and so god he beholds himself
1:08:31 infinitely perfectly absolutely because
1:08:33 he is all-knowing
1:08:35 his entire being is also in his
1:08:37 knowledge
1:08:38 and we call this a second hypostasis a
1:08:40 second underlying reality within god
1:08:43 and we see that this knower and the
1:08:46 thing that is known of himself
1:08:48 are identical in essence it's as if you
1:08:51 know god's looking into a mirror and
1:08:52 sees his entire being in the mirror
1:08:56 the image in the mirror of course is
1:08:57 caused by the one who bears the image
1:09:00 and the it's the exact image in this
1:09:02 analogy the physical analogy is not the
1:09:04 best
1:09:05 but he's called the logos because he is
1:09:07 the the thought which be
1:09:08 is begotten of the mind of god in
1:09:11 ancient platonic thought you know this
1:09:12 is what logos meant
1:09:14 uh all of our church fathers say the
1:09:15 same thing the early church fathers and
1:09:17 of course we still teach this today
1:09:19 that the logos is the exact image of the
1:09:22 father's hypostasis
1:09:23 even according to the scriptures that's
1:09:25 hebrews 1 3.
1:09:26 and we have many many many allegorical
1:09:28 passages and some straightforward
1:09:30 passages
1:09:31 alluding to this truth not so
1:09:35 if that makes it are the father and the
1:09:37 son the same god
1:09:40 yes are they different persons
1:09:43 uh different hypostases yeah okay so how
1:09:46 can you explain how can they be
1:09:49 the same god but different persons
1:09:51 because that uh
1:09:53 classically understood that violates the
1:09:55 law of identity
1:09:58 so when we say i personally i avoid the
1:10:01 word persons
1:10:02 in english because people when we hear
1:10:04 when we say persons they think of
1:10:05 maybe you and and i they think of three
1:10:08 different people or something
1:10:10 they think of uh you know the father
1:10:11 talking to someone called the son
1:10:14 and somehow they're different beings but
1:10:17 the same being
1:10:18 obviously that would violate the law of
1:10:20 not a contradiction
1:10:21 uh you can't have two beings and one
1:10:23 being uh so i prefer the word hypostasis
1:10:26 it's used in the scriptures it's used in
1:10:27 the church father writings
1:10:29 no hypothesis is fine but it doesn't
1:10:31 really matter if you what which term you
1:10:33 use because
1:10:35 the claim the claim is that if you are
1:10:37 saying
1:10:38 uh for example if you say that these two
1:10:41 things
1:10:42 are the same type of thing which is god
1:10:44 but they're a different type of thing
1:10:47 hypostasis or person and we would say in
1:10:50 english
1:10:50 okay how do you actually bridge the gap
1:10:54 and explain
1:10:54 how they can be the same type of thing
1:10:57 which is god
1:10:58 but a different type of thing person do
1:11:00 you understand
1:11:01 how that violates the law of identity or
1:11:05 not
1:11:05 no no because they're the same in tur
1:11:08 in regards to essence they are distinct
1:11:13 uh when it comes to the hypostases and
1:11:14 we see that both hypostases must exist
1:11:17 and that one exists because of the other
1:11:19 so once again
1:11:20 there is god now let's all imagine this
1:11:23 no pun intended
1:11:24 god he imagines himself in his mind
1:11:28 okay he has infinite knowledge he knows
1:11:30 everything entirely
1:11:31 and and holy and so when he contemplates
1:11:35 himself
1:11:37 his entire being is in the image in his
1:11:41 mind
1:11:42 because he knows all things perfectly he
1:11:44 knows himself wholly and perfectly
1:11:47 so his the image in his mind is an exact
1:11:50 copy of the self
1:11:54 we call this the self image or the logos
1:11:57 so once again god's entire self is
1:12:00 in the image in his mind but the self
1:12:04 and the self image are distinct not by
1:12:07 substance
1:12:08 because everything his substance is is
1:12:11 in the image
1:12:12 because he is all-knowing and we see
1:12:14 here that even the self-image must exist
1:12:16 because it's
1:12:17 of course necessary that god knows
1:12:19 himself
1:12:20 and it's necessary that god is infinite
1:12:22 in knowledge and therefore knows his
1:12:23 entire self
1:12:25 yeah i mean we're get we're going on a
1:12:27 bit the point is that when you say that
1:12:29 x is the same f as y
1:12:33 you're actually saying that the two
1:12:35 things are identical
1:12:37 identical in essence but we see that
1:12:39 identical
1:12:40 identical in terms of numerical identity
1:12:45 in that they are the two are one and are
1:12:47 one god
1:12:48 yeah but we see that the knower and the
1:12:50 known
1:12:51 are distinct would you agree no what i'm
1:12:54 trying to explain to you is that
1:12:56 in logic when you say that two things
1:12:59 are the same
1:13:00 type of thing that implies that they are
1:13:02 identical to one another
1:13:04 and cannot be differed they cannot have
1:13:07 anything different about them in any
1:13:09 properties whatsoever
1:13:12 you cannot have want two things that are
1:13:15 the same type of thing
1:13:16 but a different other type of thing
1:13:20 i mean that's why we say they're not
1:13:21 different they're distinct
1:13:24 there's no difference between father and
1:13:25 son there's a distinction
1:13:27 this is a real distinction they have
1:13:29 different properties
1:13:31 no we we believe there's one set of
1:13:33 properties in god that is
1:13:34 his essence we believe in only one
1:13:37 one existence of god there is not
1:13:40 i mean you can say that one has
1:13:42 conceptual properties but there's not
1:13:44 real properties there's not something in
1:13:46 who we call god in something
1:13:48 else in who we call the logos is the
1:13:50 father
1:13:51 identity is the father unbegotten
1:13:54 the father is unbegotten yes is the son
1:13:57 unbegotten
1:13:59 no the the sun has begotten right
1:14:01 because they have they have a difference
1:14:03 about them
1:14:04 they're not exactly the same but the
1:14:06 distinction is by relation
1:14:08 and that one comes from the other we're
1:14:10 not going to look at what we call the
1:14:11 sun you know
1:14:12 in in theory let's say we were able to
1:14:14 see god
1:14:15 uh god forbid but we can't look into who
1:14:18 we call the logos and say look there's a
1:14:20 property right there that we can't see
1:14:22 in this other hypostasis
1:14:24 because the logos is merely the self
1:14:26 it's the
1:14:27 it's the self-image it's the perfect
1:14:29 image of the first hypostasis
1:14:32 yeah but unbegottenness is not a
1:14:34 property that can be shared
1:14:36 let me begin yes but when i'm i'm saying
1:14:39 it's not a real
1:14:41 property do you get what i'm saying it's
1:14:42 not an actual thing which is really
1:14:44 distinct from the essence
1:14:46 it is because it's it's either a part
1:14:49 it's either a part of the essence
1:14:50 or it's part of the person okay
1:14:54 let's get into it's a property it's a
1:14:56 property of the person of the father
1:15:00 it's not a real property a real thing
1:15:03 which is really distinct from the
1:15:04 essence though
1:15:05 we i mean i'm sure you would admit that
1:15:07 god must know his
1:15:09 self he must have an image of himself in
1:15:12 his mind
1:15:13 well it has to either be a property of
1:15:15 the essence or it's not and if it's not
1:15:17 then what is that property of
1:15:19 you're saying it's not a property
1:15:20 whatsoever we would say
1:15:22 we believe in something called divine
1:15:24 simplicity that you know god has not
1:15:25 composed the parts
1:15:26 that whatever prophet properties we can
1:15:28 attribute to god are his essence
1:15:31 we don't think there's a real
1:15:32 distinction between god's knowledge
1:15:36 god's love god's power and likewise
1:15:38 we're not going to say that there's
1:15:39 something in god called
1:15:40 unbegottenness begottenness and
1:15:43 procession
1:15:44 yeah but are the persons identical to
1:15:46 the essence
1:15:47 the persons are identical to the essence
1:15:49 yes okay so are the persons identical
1:15:52 to one another in essence
1:15:55 okay so look now you're making a
1:15:58 clarification when i say
1:15:59 are the persons identical to the essence
1:16:02 you're saying
1:16:03 yes meaning that they're the exact same
1:16:06 thing as the essence
1:16:07 but then when i ask if they're identical
1:16:09 to one another you're not giving a clear
1:16:11 yes answer so that shows that there's
1:16:14 something different
1:16:15 between the two persons you're you're
1:16:17 saying these two things
1:16:19 are identical to this one other thing
1:16:21 which is the essence
1:16:22 that implies that if those two things
1:16:24 are identical to that other
1:16:26 thing which is the essence they have to
1:16:28 be identical to one another
1:16:30 and you can't say that that's the whole
1:16:32 problem
1:16:34 i mean they're distinct in hypoce this
1:16:36 is part of the mystery of the trinity of
1:16:37 course but we see how it must be the
1:16:38 case
1:16:40 and you know we're talking about whether
1:16:41 or not the trinity makes sense right of
1:16:43 course
1:16:44 right we can see this cannot be
1:16:46 polytheism obviously it's it's one god
1:16:48 since you think the three are identical
1:16:50 even in hypostasis it's it's one god
1:16:52 this is the christian
1:16:53 teaching on the trinity first off but
1:16:56 would you agree
1:16:57 that well i guess i have a question for
1:17:00 you do you believe in divine simplicity
1:17:02 or
1:17:03 or what is your school of thought in in
1:17:04 islam are you uh
1:17:06 no no we don't we don't believe in
1:17:10 divine simplicity but
1:17:11 before we get into that we want to stick
1:17:15 on this point point because you said
1:17:16 well
1:17:17 when i when i made that point and i
1:17:19 think you understood it you said well
1:17:21 at this point sort of the the trinity is
1:17:22 a mystery which
1:17:24 i can understand what you're saying but
1:17:26 i want to make clear
1:17:28 that you and the audience understood the
1:17:31 point that i was trying to make
1:17:33 and give you a chance to resolve that
1:17:36 apparent problem if you don't think you
1:17:38 can and that at that point
1:17:40 it's where you have to say it's a
1:17:41 mystery that's fine i'm not
1:17:43 like disrespecting you but i just want
1:17:46 to understand that that's what you're
1:17:47 saying
1:17:49 i mean it's we can see how this must be
1:17:52 the case and of course god has revealed
1:17:54 to us that this is the case that he's a
1:17:55 trinity as to how
1:17:58 it is that his nature exists in this way
1:18:01 you know i i'm not sure
1:18:03 uh but we can just kind of look at
1:18:06 everything and say well
1:18:07 yeah there's god and there's god's
1:18:10 self-knowledge and these are really
1:18:12 distinct
1:18:14 would you agree with that so far there's
1:18:16 god and there's god's knowledge and
1:18:17 these are really distinct
1:18:18 under and i don't know if jake wants to
1:18:20 so you don't mind me jumping into you
1:18:21 jake
1:18:22 uh no go ahead i don't mind no i was
1:18:24 gonna say and because you
1:18:26 mentioned that you believe in divine
1:18:27 simplicity
1:18:29 now under the doctrine of divine
1:18:30 simplicity
1:18:32 the attributes or the persons
1:18:35 would have to be identical to the
1:18:37 essence and each property would have to
1:18:40 be identical to each other property
1:18:42 you couldn't distinguish any of them
1:18:45 well yeah but these aren't real
1:18:47 properties
1:18:48 these are human concepts that we add
1:18:50 tribute to god that's what we call them
1:18:51 attributes
1:18:52 yeah but what about what is god he's
1:18:54 above these things the persons are not
1:18:56 just
1:18:56 human constructs they're right yeah
1:18:58 these are real things
1:19:00 so if these three persons are real
1:19:03 things
1:19:03 and they're distinct they cannot be
1:19:06 identical to one another
1:19:07Music 1:19:09 they can be identical in essence as i've
1:19:11 shown that
1:19:12 god if he beholds himself in his mind
1:19:16 in what we call the logos the logos must
1:19:19 be an exact
1:19:21 image if there's anything less in the
1:19:23 logos then god does not know his entire
1:19:25 self
1:19:26 if there's anything more than the logos
1:19:29 then once again god does not
1:19:31 have a perfect image of himself in his
1:19:33 mind meaning he's not all-knowing
1:19:35 but if he is all-knowing and if his
1:19:37 knowledge is perfect
1:19:39 the logos must be the exact image of the
1:19:43 father's hypostasis as the scripture
1:19:44 says and as saint paul said
1:19:46 yeah but let me explain something to you
1:19:48 about how identity works
1:19:50 so you before you said that the two part
1:19:53 the the
1:19:54 let's just take the father and the son
1:19:55 the father and the son
1:19:57 are identical to the essence of god this
1:20:00 is what your claim was
1:20:01 now if in in logic if
1:20:04 a is identical to b and
1:20:08 b is identical to c then it follows
1:20:11 logically that a
1:20:12 is identical to c so if you're comparing
1:20:15 these two things which is the father and
1:20:17 the son and you're saying that they are
1:20:20 identical to the essence then it follows
1:20:23 logically that the father and the son
1:20:26 are identical to one another which is
1:20:28 the very same thing that you
1:20:30 or an orthodox christian would want to
1:20:32 deny
1:20:33 so that's where the conflict is yeah i
1:20:36 mean i
1:20:36 i wouldn't bring this this uh
1:20:39 x equals essence y equals essence z
1:20:42 equals essence therefore x equals y and
1:20:43 y
1:20:44 equals z thing i think that this can
1:20:45 apply to the physical world but
1:20:47 there is no physical analogy for the
1:20:49 trinity this is uh
1:20:50 is a very mysterious thing as we get
1:20:52 into metaphysics and
1:20:54 and we see that somehow there must be
1:20:57 three underlying realities
1:20:59 though one existence yeah but this is
1:21:02 this is not a this is not a physical law
1:21:04 this is a necessary logical law
1:21:07 but we see it's necessary that there
1:21:09 must be god's knowledge and that god's
1:21:11 knowledge must be the exact
1:21:14 image of his self
1:21:17 i can't explain that but we see how that
1:21:19 must be the case because god is
1:21:21 necessary
1:21:21 or necessarily all-knowing i think i
1:21:24 think you're understanding the problem
1:21:26 because
1:21:26 when i broke it down you're basically
1:21:28 saying well this is a physical law
1:21:31 it's not a physical law it's a logical
1:21:34 law
1:21:34 or something that is uh metaphysical
1:21:36 that would apply to god in the sense
1:21:39 now it seems almost like you're starting
1:21:41 to go down
1:21:42 at this point the same path of the
1:21:45 previous
1:21:46 individual in which you're you're
1:21:48 leaning towards saying well this
1:21:50 this classical law of identity doesn't
1:21:53 apply to god is that right
1:21:56 um i'm not saying that it's it i
1:21:59 it's possible i lack knowledge on this
1:22:01 certain part it's just i i can't explain
1:22:03 how there are three hypostases i can
1:22:05 explain how there are
1:22:07 if that makes sense even though i just
1:22:09 repeat the same thing um
1:22:11 i if if we can maybe move
1:22:15 on and and uh it's possible i just don't
1:22:18 have the proper answer when it comes to
1:22:19 this
1:22:20 no that's fine let's just say that in
1:22:22 the beginning um
1:22:24 your name is neo right yep yeah so so in
1:22:27 the beginning neo when you came on it
1:22:29 seemed like you were saying that
1:22:31 there was some kind of like a
1:22:32 mischaracterization of what we call the
1:22:34 logical problem of the trinity
1:22:36 but then further down the line
1:22:39 you seem to be appealing to mystery and
1:22:41 saying that well this is mysterious and
1:22:43 we can't understand it so
1:22:45 fine that's okay i mean appealing to
1:22:47 mystery i think
1:22:48 in certain cases is fine but i think
1:22:51 that does
1:22:52 mean that you do acknowledge that there
1:22:54 is a logical problem of the trinity
1:22:56 because
1:22:57 otherwise why would why else would you
1:22:58 appeal to mystery no
1:23:00 i i mean we believe that there are
1:23:02 mysteries we think that if you could fit
1:23:04 god in your head
1:23:05 it's not god uh yeah yeah but say
1:23:08 there's a logical problem with saying
1:23:09 god is body parts
1:23:11 or denying divine simplicity yeah but at
1:23:13 this point you're at least
1:23:14 acknowledging that i've brought up a
1:23:17 good point
1:23:18 that you have to maybe think about and
1:23:21 then come back and have a further
1:23:22 discussion on
1:23:24 and i think what brother abdul was
1:23:26 trying to point out is that in the
1:23:28 beginning
1:23:29 it seemed like you were charging us with
1:23:32 our
1:23:32 um basically objections to the trinity
1:23:36 were based on misconceptions
1:23:38 but i think it's been shown now that
1:23:40 it's not based on a misconception
1:23:42 it's based on what we see is a
1:23:45 legitimate problem
1:23:46 and at the very least is an apparent
1:23:48 problem
1:23:49 which you yourself right now don't
1:23:52 necessarily have a good answer for
1:23:53 i think that's fair where we're at right
1:23:55 now well i mean your misconception led
1:23:58 to you thinking the trinity is
1:23:59 polytheism
1:24:00 because you i'm showing you you guys you
1:24:02 know with all respect you didn't even
1:24:03 know what the trinity was
1:24:05 i do know what eternity is have you
1:24:07 heard of the explanation that i give
1:24:09 and if you read the church yes i have
1:24:12 okay who have you read
1:24:13 from the church fathers about this well
1:24:16 we don't have to get let's hear it
1:24:18 we don't we don't have to get into what
1:24:19 i've read but
1:24:21 what i'm saying i mean what what i'm
1:24:23 saying to you is i can show you
1:24:25 how the trinity can be understood in a
1:24:27 polytheistic fashion
1:24:29 what you're doing and what your model
1:24:32 typically would fall under
1:24:34 would uh kind of lean more towards
1:24:36 modalism
1:24:37 in the collapse of the persons because
1:24:40 of the fact that you cannot explain
1:24:42 really how they are distinct from one
1:24:44 another
1:24:45 by being somehow also identical to one
1:24:48 another
1:24:48 so there's a split there's different
1:24:51 models of the trinity
1:24:52 in different directions you can go with
1:24:54 it and either way
1:24:56 when you go one way you wind up with a
1:24:58 sort of modalistic picture
1:25:00 while on the other hand with things like
1:25:03 social trinitarianism
1:25:04 you wind up with a polytheistic version
1:25:07 of god
1:25:08 which even other christians who reject
1:25:10 social trinitarianism
1:25:12 would agree with and i think even if i
1:25:14 explain to you what that is if you don't
1:25:16 know already
1:25:17 you would even notice it okay yeah i
1:25:20 agree yeah
1:25:22 okay so you agree with the fact that
1:25:25 social trinitarianism
1:25:26 results in polytheism right yeah i mean
1:25:30 it is i wouldn't even put the word
1:25:32 trinitarianism
1:25:34 in there i think that'd be a blasphemy
1:25:35 it's just tripartite it's three beings
1:25:37 it's okay nonsense yes but you you you
1:25:40 are you do know or you should know
1:25:43 that there are a lot of christians who
1:25:47 you maybe you're not even comfortable
1:25:48 calling them christians i don't know i
1:25:50 don't really care
1:25:51 the point is that there are people who
1:25:53 are claiming to be christians
1:25:54 very popular apologists such as william
1:25:57 lane craig
1:25:58 richard swinburne he's a protestant
1:26:01 right
1:26:02 well well no richard i mean they're like
1:26:04 the ahmadi of
1:26:05 christianity it's richard they got their
1:26:08 own thing going
1:26:08 richard swinburne belongs to the eastern
1:26:10 orthodox church
1:26:12 but nevertheless he does so
1:26:15 the point my point is that it is
1:26:19 popular in christian apologetics today
1:26:22 especially in contemporary christian
1:26:23 philosophy in this idea of a social
1:26:26 trinity
1:26:27 which you are agreeing as polytheism so
1:26:29 i'm saying
1:26:30 that broadly speaking there's two models
1:26:33 very broadly there's two sorts of models
1:26:36 and i'm arguing
1:26:37 that if you go one way and you define
1:26:40 the persons in such a way that they
1:26:42 aren't distinct enough you wind up with
1:26:44 this modalistic problem
1:26:46 where they're identical to each other
1:26:48 which is i think what you've sort of
1:26:49 collapsed into
1:26:50 on the other hand if you define the
1:26:52 persons so
1:26:54 separately from one another then you
1:26:56 wind up with social trinitarianism
1:26:58 or a version of polytheism or tritheism
1:27:02 so i don't think that uh we
1:27:05 especially myself we've misrepresented
1:27:07 anything about christianity or the
1:27:10 trinity whatsoever
1:27:11 and anytime we did bring up the issue of
1:27:14 polytheism
1:27:15 this is sort of what we're referring to
1:27:17 i would say that you don't necessarily
1:27:19 have a problem with polytheism right now
1:27:21 but you have an incoherence in your own
1:27:23 model in saying that these two things
1:27:25 are identical to the essence
1:27:27 but then they're not identical to one
1:27:28 another and this violates the law of
1:27:30 identity
1:27:31 which basically collapses into modalism
1:27:34 that's the argument for you
1:27:35 okay so i have a couple questions so
1:27:37 first off do you believe that there's a
1:27:39 real distinction between god's
1:27:41 you know self and his knowledge yes or
1:27:44 no what do you mean by that
1:27:47 between god and his knowledge do you
1:27:49 think that there's a real distinction
1:27:50 between the two
1:27:52 there is god and there is his knowledge
1:27:54 and these are two realities within god
1:27:56 on the islamic conception yeah because
1:27:59 you said you did not believe in divine
1:28:01 simplicity
1:28:02 no we don't believe we don't believe in
1:28:03 divine simplicity
1:28:05 so you believe that there's god and
1:28:07 there's god's knowledge
1:28:09 are you aware neo that the problem with
1:28:11 divine simplicity is
1:28:13 when you talk about attributes or even
1:28:15 persons
1:28:16 they are in essence talking about the
1:28:18 same thing
1:28:20 and there's no distinction between them
1:28:22 so there's no distinction
1:28:25 yeah so for example god's knowledge and
1:28:28 god's wrath
1:28:29 and god's love and god's mercy would all
1:28:32 be identical
1:28:33 under divine simplicity in a sense and
1:28:36 then of course in another sense they're
1:28:37 not
1:28:38 yeah of course no no it's not even in
1:28:40 the sense that they're not
1:28:42 yes so for example
1:28:45 under divine one of the criticisms of
1:28:46 divine simplicity uh
1:28:49 uh that has been brought up is the fact
1:28:51 that it collapses
1:28:53 in which there are no uh distinguishing
1:28:56 attributes within god
1:28:57 they're all identical to the essence the
1:29:00 attribute is identical to the essence
1:29:03 yes but these the attributes are merely
1:29:06 human concepts that we attribute to him
1:29:08 in the first place
1:29:10 right they're identical to the essence
1:29:11 in the sense that whatever god has he is
1:29:15 in the sense in which these attributes
1:29:16 are not his essence it's they're human
1:29:18 concepts that we're observing in
1:29:19 creation
1:29:20 we didn't look at god we looked at
1:29:22 creation and attributed
1:29:24 these ideas so does god really have
1:29:26 knowledge
1:29:27 well no he's above that you know the
1:29:29 scriptures say his his true name is is
1:29:31 unknown to all men it's above all the
1:29:32 names that we attribute to him
1:29:35 yeah he's the infinite one he's not
1:29:39 i agree with you in the fact that the
1:29:41 attributes of god are not something
1:29:43 it's something that we come to
1:29:44 understand through the nature of the
1:29:45 universe isn't it so we're not saying
1:29:47 that they are identical
1:29:49 to god yeah so we come to know that
1:29:52 there is
1:29:53 a creator because we sense creation that
1:29:56 there is a necessary being or
1:29:58 a self-sufficient eternal being because
1:30:00 there are contingent beings
1:30:02 dependent uh beings that exist so we
1:30:05 come to these conclusions
1:30:07 however under the model of divine
1:30:09 simplicity
1:30:11 coming to that conclusion that god is
1:30:14 the creator
1:30:15 he's self-sufficient he's merc he has
1:30:18 knowledge all these uh
1:30:20 you know necessary attributes that they
1:30:21 talk about would have to be
1:30:23 identical to one another and be
1:30:25 identical
1:30:26 to the uh to the essence of god
1:30:30 under that model how do you and you you
1:30:32 mentioned obviously you said that
1:30:33 attributes are something that we
1:30:35 mentally construct yeah by observation
1:30:37 of the universe
1:30:38 but under the the model of divine
1:30:41 simplicity how do you
1:30:42 affirm the persons of god as being
1:30:45 distinct
1:30:46 while also accepting that they're all
1:30:48 the same god
1:30:51 i have to know i'm just a genuine
1:30:52 question because i've never understood
1:30:54 how
1:30:54 uh divine simplicities if that's the
1:30:57 word
1:30:58 to use how they reconcile under
1:31:00 trinitarian view
1:31:02 the fact that you have different you
1:31:04 know persons of god
1:31:05 but they're exactly the same as god but
1:31:07 they're also exactly
1:31:09 differentiating between themselves
1:31:12 distinct
1:31:12 yeah yeah so
1:31:16 it's a good question so first and
1:31:16 foremost of course it's by god's
1:31:18 revelation to us that we know this for a
1:31:20 fact
1:31:20 he's revealed himself as a trinity uh
1:31:22 he's revealed himself as god
1:31:24 his logos and his you know internal
1:31:26 operation or his spirit
1:31:27 you know the breath uh you know
1:31:31 we can see we can work off of logic and
1:31:33 see wow this
1:31:34 this must be the case because within
1:31:36 this
1:31:38 uh you know self-comprehension analogy
1:31:39 we see there must be a knower and we
1:31:41 must
1:31:41 see that there's a thing that is known
1:31:43 of course for god to know
1:31:45 there must be a thought for him to think
1:31:46 there must be a thought
1:31:48 so there's a thinker there's a thought
1:31:51 and there's a thinking you know the
1:31:54 thinker uses the thinking to know the
1:31:55 thought
1:31:56 like the god
1:32:01 you know god knows best but we see that
1:32:04 it must be the case
1:32:06 we must appeal the mystery at some point
1:32:08 if we don't i mean
1:32:09 it's a creation that we're thinking of
1:32:11 do you think god's existence is
1:32:13 necessary
1:32:15 of course yeah do you think god's one
1:32:18 act of creation is identical to his
1:32:20 essence
1:32:22 god's in himself yes but it is not
1:32:25 necessary
1:32:26 okay so god's act of creation is
1:32:29 identical
1:32:31 to his essence which is necessary
1:32:34 so again you you wind up having the the
1:32:36 same issue
1:32:38 that you either have what's called the
1:32:39 modal collapse i don't know if you're
1:32:41 sure
1:32:41 heard of the motor collapse yes but so
1:32:44 you have on the one hand you either have
1:32:47 to accept the modal collapse because of
1:32:49 what i'm just explaining
1:32:51 or you you say there is no motor
1:32:54 collapse
1:32:55 and you wind up with the same problem
1:32:57 that we just explained about the law of
1:32:59 identity when you say that
1:33:01 god's existence is necessary god's one
1:33:05 act of creation is identical to his
1:33:08 existence
1:33:09 and therefore that would have to be
1:33:11 necessary but that's the very thing
1:33:13 that orthodox christianity denies when
1:33:15 it says
1:33:16 that god's act of creation is free and
1:33:19 not necessary so you have an
1:33:21 internal contradiction in your model
1:33:24 i i say that there's something beyond
1:33:27 our comprehension that we
1:33:28 we you know can't even really explain i
1:33:31 mean when it comes to god being the
1:33:32 infinite one how can we even describe
1:33:35 infinity we we can never name anything
1:33:38 precisely of god in the first place
1:33:41 but i mean on the contra to the contrary
1:33:44 if you if you think that
1:33:45 it is not his essence and that it's
1:33:48 something else there's something
1:33:49 else existing along the side for all of
1:33:52 eternity alongside god for all of
1:33:53 eternity
1:33:54 meaning it's another god it's another
1:33:56 existence
1:33:57 there's nothing outside of god but
1:33:59 anyway i believe his act of creation is
1:34:02 eternal right
1:34:03 or did he begin to create which would
1:34:06 cause him to change
1:34:08 no so you want to say something yeah i
1:34:11 know he's gonna say see neo
1:34:12 what you seem to be doing because you
1:34:14 seem to be moving from being a divine
1:34:15 simplistic
1:34:17 believing in divine simplicity yeah and
1:34:19 then moving away from divine simplicity
1:34:21 when it becomes problematic because of
1:34:23 the
1:34:24 the logical implication or entailment of
1:34:27 that particular
1:34:28 uh belief system um by saying it well
1:34:31 it's a mystery
1:34:32 yeah i'm just saying is that look if
1:34:35 if you're gonna affirm something about
1:34:36 god like saying that god
1:34:38 is a divinely simple being
1:34:41 then you have to accept all of its
1:34:43 logical entailments for it
1:34:45 i don't think what you can do is simply
1:34:46 say well we affirm it here when it's
1:34:48 convenient
1:34:49 and then you know when there are
1:34:52 questions that we cannot reconcile
1:34:53 because obviously our minds are limited
1:34:56 we suddenly leave it and then appeal to
1:34:58 mystery
1:34:59 you know um because divine simplicity
1:35:02 like i said
1:35:03 entails that the attributes are exactly
1:35:06 the same as the
1:35:06 essence and there's no distinction
1:35:09 between any of the attributes
1:35:11 they're all exactly the same now even if
1:35:14 you turn around and say well that's a
1:35:15 mental construction because of
1:35:17 observation of the universe
1:35:19 but when when christians talk about a
1:35:21 trinity they're not talking about human
1:35:23 construction
1:35:24 of god they are talking about these
1:35:26 things as being real
1:35:28 things yeah they are concrete realities
1:35:31 that exist but they're on the one hand
1:35:35 identical to this divinely simple being
1:35:39 god but at the same time you're not
1:35:42 accepting the fact that
1:35:43 divine simplicity would then entail that
1:35:45 they would have to be
1:35:46 identical to each other because that
1:35:48 goes against the christian doctrine
1:35:51 yeah uh you know in terms of the fact
1:35:52 that they are distinct persons
1:35:54 and that's the problem the problem here
1:35:56 is that you've got two
1:35:57 positions two propositions or two belief
1:35:59 claims that you're holding
1:36:01 they don't they don't reconcile and it's
1:36:04 not the problem of
1:36:05 the mystery it's the problem of the
1:36:08 claims that are being made
1:36:10 are not reconcilable yeah
1:36:13 um i think we have a couple other people
1:36:16 waiting
1:36:17 we might want to uh bring somebody else
1:36:20 on brother youssef i don't know
1:36:22 if you're there or uh i don't know if
1:36:24 neo wants to make it a little quite last
1:36:26 yeah
1:36:28 i really appreciate it yeah uh yeah i
1:36:31 enjoyed this i mean i'll say that you
1:36:33 know we
1:36:33 there's there's apatheticism there's
1:36:35 cataphase of course
1:36:36 i mean we can say that this cannot be
1:36:39 the case uh the following things cannot
1:36:41 be the case
1:36:41 that god is composite and so therefore
1:36:44 he's simple
1:36:45 how can we understand that he's simple
1:36:47 by being apathetic we know that he
1:36:48 cannot be composite
1:36:49 because he's not a finite being he does
1:36:52 not begin to create
1:36:54 he does not change therefore he's
1:36:56 outside of time but what does outside of
1:36:58 time even mean
1:37:00 who knows god knows and whatever that is
1:37:03 whatever you know
1:37:04 the perfect description of that you know
1:37:07 being outside of time
1:37:08 or of that infinity the infinite aspect
1:37:12 of god
1:37:12 no one knows how to name that because
1:37:14 the name is his essence no one can
1:37:16 comprehend the essence we only know him
1:37:18 by creation
1:37:19 and so at the end of the day we're
1:37:21 always going to be making analogies and
1:37:22 analogies
1:37:23 never is there going to be an absolutely
1:37:25 perfect
1:37:27 analogy it seems that we can kind of
1:37:30 come closer and closer to
1:37:33 when it comes to this but we we got to
1:37:35 be apathetic we know that
1:37:38 god does not begin to create and so
1:37:41 therefore god creates
1:37:43 in a sense we can say he creates
1:37:45 eternally that is to say outside of time
1:37:48 and because there's only god outside of
1:37:50 time there's nothing else outside of
1:37:51 time
1:37:52 then there's only god's essence outside
1:37:53 of time but seeing that also in concept
1:37:57 you know conceptually we could say that
1:37:58 god his act of creation is outside of
1:38:01 time
1:38:01 we can therefore say that god's act of
1:38:03 creation is his essence
1:38:06 but again because these analogies are
1:38:07 not absolutely 100 perfect
1:38:09 we have to appeal to mystery at some
1:38:11 point and if we don't
1:38:13 we'd have to say that god is composite
1:38:15 that god is finite
1:38:17 that a human being can understand the
1:38:18 fullness in every single thing about god
1:38:21 which of course would just make him part
1:38:23 of creation
1:38:25 so if that makes sense but i did
1:38:28 enjoy this discussion hopefully uh in
1:38:30 the future thanks neo appreciate you
1:38:32 being known
1:38:33 cool until next time
1:38:36 uh so we've been going for about an hour
1:38:40 and 40 minutes i reckon we've got justin
1:38:42 here
1:38:43 um so we'll bring oh where'd he go
1:38:45 before we get justin
1:38:47 before he comes on i was just gonna say
1:38:49 to uh jake about
1:38:51 the thoughts about this idea that
1:38:53 adhering to divine simplicity
1:38:55 as well as adhering to a concept of
1:38:57 trinitarianism
1:38:59 i i can't see any reconciliation between
1:39:02 the two
1:39:03 no i mean i can't either and hence why
1:39:06 um i think it became apparent
1:39:09 in the discussion with neo um i think he
1:39:12 was
1:39:13 respectful so i'm not disrespect him in
1:39:16 any way but
1:39:16 he came on initially very confident and
1:39:20 seemed like um we
1:39:23 making the sort of claim that we were
1:39:25 our arguments
1:39:26 were based on misconceptions or
1:39:29 misrepresentations of what
1:39:30 trinitarians actually believed and then
1:39:33 when we got down to the nitty-gritty
1:39:36 and sort of the argument based on
1:39:40 the the law of identity was presented to
1:39:42 him especially given his
1:39:44 understanding of divine simplicity it
1:39:47 basically collapsed
1:39:48 i think he recognized the problem didn't
1:39:51 really have a good answer for it
1:39:53 and thus that's when he kind of threw up
1:39:55 the mystery card
1:39:57 which is fine as brother abdul said i'm
1:40:00 not trying to like
1:40:01 bash him or anything but i'm just
1:40:03 pointing out for the audience because
1:40:06 you know the audience may not know
1:40:08 exactly or
1:40:09 really understand what's happening in
1:40:11 the conversation so i'm just kind of
1:40:13 recapping what happened yeah i do want
1:40:16 to say about divine simplicity and
1:40:18 trinitarianism i cannot understand it
1:40:21 whatsoever
1:40:22 because the idea is making a distinction
1:40:25 between the being and the persons so if
1:40:28 at the fundamental level there's this
1:40:30 distinction between the being and the
1:40:32 persons
1:40:33 how could you say that they're identical
1:40:35 and that's what he did is he wound up
1:40:37 saying that the persons
1:40:39 were identical to the essence but then
1:40:42 the persons are not identical
1:40:44 to one another which it would seem to
1:40:46 follow that they are
1:40:48 and when i pointed that out that's when
1:40:50 the mystery card came up because
1:40:52 he saw the implications of how much of a
1:40:55 problem that is
1:40:56 yeah so just to maybe just just to
1:40:59 reiterate
1:41:00 uh when you say the problem of identity
1:41:03 what you're basically saying is this
1:41:05 is that if x is
1:41:08 a and y is a then
1:41:11 x is y yes they are identical to each
1:41:15 other
1:41:16 you can't have x being a y is also
1:41:19 a but x is not y yeah it's just like in
1:41:23 algebra
1:41:23 like if you uh if you put in a value
1:41:27 for x and y and or x y
1:41:30 and z say and they were the same number
1:41:32 okay you said that
1:41:34 x was identical to y and y
1:41:37 is identical to z then it would just
1:41:40 follow that
1:41:41 x is identical to z also so
1:41:44 that's that's the whole problem is that
1:41:46 essentially he was saying that
1:41:48 these two things are identical to this
1:41:51 third thing
1:41:52 but those two things are not identical
1:41:55 to one another
1:41:56 that it doesn't make sense it doesn't
1:41:58 make sense that's right and i think the
1:41:59 other problem
1:42:00 the other issue is in terms of divine
1:42:02 simplicity see i didn't understand
1:42:04 why he had to affirm divine simplicity
1:42:06 because
1:42:07 you know it's an unnecessary
1:42:09 metaphysical commitment on his behalf
1:42:12 because every time you pointed out
1:42:15 the problems with the persons or the
1:42:17 problems the fact that god is a
1:42:18 necessary being but his act of creation
1:42:20 was free wasn't necessary
1:42:22 he's suddenly saying yeah what do we
1:42:23 mean by god creating outside of time
1:42:26 it's not
1:42:27 you know you know necessary to god but
1:42:30 it's free so all of these things they
1:42:32 don't they don't
1:42:34 uh they don't lead to the conclusion of
1:42:36 an absolute divine simplicity
1:42:38 and maybe also for the audience to
1:42:39 understand what an absolute divine
1:42:41 simplicity is referring to
1:42:43 is the idea that god is not making
1:42:46 in i think it was thomas aquinas and
1:42:48 aristotle's philosophy but certainly
1:42:50 thomas aquinas popularized it within
1:42:52 christianity
1:42:53 is that they had the conception that god
1:42:55 has to be absolutely
1:42:57 simple cannot be made of any parts
1:43:00 including abstract notions of
1:43:03 attributes they can't be parts of god
1:43:07 so therefore they have to be identical
1:43:09 to god so the attribute
1:43:11 is identical to god but the problem with
1:43:14 that is if you say the attribute is
1:43:16 identical to god
1:43:17 that god's mercy is identical to god
1:43:20 and god's wrath is identified identical
1:43:23 identical to god
1:43:25 then god's mercy is identical to god's
1:43:28 wrath
1:43:29 yeah yeah so to add something there
1:43:33 about the divine simplicity problem um
1:43:36 regardless of of what you know like like
1:43:39 whether it is an actual
1:43:40 actually a problem and when we're
1:43:41 discussing composites and and
1:43:43 stuff in relation to god and this whole
1:43:46 divine simplicity discussion comes up as
1:43:48 a solution
1:43:49 i think that's a shared problem between
1:43:52 both world views islam and christianity
1:43:54 or like unitarianism and trinitarianism
1:43:57 i think there's a difference i mean
1:43:58 there are always going to be paradoxes
1:44:00 to a certain extent i'm not saying that
1:44:02 this one is unresolvable but let's say
1:44:04 for the sake of argument that it is
1:44:06 there are always going to be certain
1:44:07 like uh stopping points and paradoxes
1:44:11 in any kind of line of reasoning so if
1:44:13 you start with a line of reasoning
1:44:15 that is valid and that takes you to a
1:44:17 place that leads to
1:44:18 a paradox let's say russell's paradox
1:44:21 from set theory or or or
1:44:23 russell's uh propositions paradox these
1:44:26 are paradoxes that
1:44:27 result out of a necessary and valid
1:44:31 line of reasoning that's very different
1:44:33 when you start with a problem
1:44:35 you start with an unnecessary apparently
1:44:38 contradictory notion
1:44:40 which in this case is the trinity and
1:44:43 from there you
1:44:44 try to do the legwork and resolving it
1:44:46 it's kind of the reverse of the
1:44:48 situation with the divine simplicity
1:44:49 issue
1:44:50 both muslims and christians believe that
1:44:53 our reason takes us to
1:44:57 this point of a necessary being
1:45:00 and then all the metaphysical the deep
1:45:02 metaphysical discussions we have about
1:45:04 the nature of
1:45:06 this necessary being may or may not
1:45:08 result in these sort of
1:45:10 uh uh deep questions uh and
1:45:13 and from there you can you can you can
1:45:16 you can analyze whether you want to have
1:45:17 that like kind of ontological cost and
1:45:19 go for like a divine simplicity
1:45:21 uh commitment or a say that you know you
1:45:24 don't have a problem with metaphysical
1:45:25 composites
1:45:26 but regardless the the reason there is
1:45:29 a quote-unquote problem is is
1:45:32 because you started with a very valid
1:45:34 line of reasoning that took you to a
1:45:36 certain place
1:45:37 where they're going to be all these
1:45:38 kinds of metaphysical questions that you
1:45:40 may or may not be able to answer
1:45:42 the difference between that and the
1:45:43 trinity is that in the case of the
1:45:45 trinity you start with the problem
1:45:46 you're starting with this extra baggage
1:45:49 on the notion of a necessary being that
1:45:51 is
1:45:51 unnecessary for us to have a sound or a
1:45:55 reasonable
1:45:55 conception of god and from there you try
1:45:57 to solve all these problems so i i think
1:45:59 that's a huge difference
1:46:00 we have that divine simplicity
1:46:02 discussion in common between both faiths
1:46:04 so it's not like
1:46:06 it's not like if if it's a it's an
1:46:09 ontological cost in one faith or the
1:46:11 other because
1:46:12 i think we're on par in that in that
1:46:14 sense
1:46:15 but then i think the whole logical
1:46:17 problem of the trinity is
1:46:18 an entirely different uh kind of uh
1:46:21 question to answer because it starts
1:46:23 with the problem and doesn't end with it
1:46:25 yeah just sorry yeah i just want to say
1:46:29 that
1:46:29 yes i mean that is an issue that the
1:46:32 muslim scholars have addressed
1:46:34 um for example the the overall opinion
1:46:38 of the ummah is that we reject absolute
1:46:41 divine simplicity
1:46:43 now the tesli and some of the
1:46:44 philosophers like even cena
1:46:47 they believed in it but overall the
1:46:49 ashari's the atharys
1:46:51 mataridis they all reject absolute
1:46:54 divine simplicity in favor of the idea
1:46:56 that god does have multiple real
1:46:59 attributes that they're not identical to
1:47:01 one another
1:47:02 now how actually do we resolve the
1:47:04 problem and he was
1:47:06 mentioning of god being a composite or
1:47:08 made of
1:47:09 parts we don't believe that god is a
1:47:11 composite or made of parts
1:47:13 in that sense because when you think
1:47:15 about a part like if i chop off my hand
1:47:18 i would still exist so in a sense the
1:47:21 hand is a part of me right
1:47:23 but because it's a part because i can
1:47:26 part with it
1:47:28 but god in terms of his necessary and
1:47:30 essential attributes
1:47:32 he cannot part from them they're
1:47:34 inseparable from his
1:47:36 essence now they're not identical to one
1:47:38 another but they're not parts because
1:47:40 they're not the sort of thing
1:47:41 that he can part with so i think we can
1:47:45 go into more depth and maybe i plan on
1:47:47 doing on my own channel uh
1:47:50 sort of a deeper explanation of this and
1:47:52 going into these things further
1:47:54 and i would agree with you abdul that
1:47:55 it's a question that muslims have to
1:47:57 answer to as well
1:47:58 the differences and i think what brother
1:48:01 sharif was trying to point out
1:48:03 and what i was piggybacking on is that
1:48:06 mixing divine simplicity with
1:48:10 the trinity just seems like two things
1:48:12 that cannot possibly work together
1:48:15 that that's what the real issue is like
1:48:18 when you're bringing up when you have
1:48:20 this fundamental understanding of the
1:48:22 trinity
1:48:22 and then also you have this fundamental
1:48:24 belief in divine simplicity it's like
1:48:27 whoa how do you make these two things
1:48:29 work
1:48:30 uh it seems even more difficult to do
1:48:33 without collapsing the persons into one
1:48:36 and so
1:48:37 i think i agree with you it's an issue
1:48:39 that we have to answer and like i said
1:48:41 maybe i'll do some videos on it
1:48:43 but i think mixing the idea of three
1:48:46 distinct persons
1:48:48 with absolute divine simplicity is just
1:48:51 impossible i don't see how it could work
1:48:53 yeah just just just just i just want to
1:48:55 add because brother mustachine just made
1:48:56 a very interesting comment in the chat
1:48:59 and just to clarify what i was saying
1:49:00 earlier i think it does clarify it
1:49:03 it's about the universality of the the
1:49:06 creed or the conception of god
1:49:08 so we know that like if someone in like
1:49:10 a disconnected
1:49:11 civilization or tribe or something could
1:49:14 rationally arrive
1:49:15 at a unitary conception of god and he
1:49:18 would be rationally justified in doing
1:49:20 so
1:49:20 but you can't through natural theology
1:49:23 alone
1:49:24 arrive at a trinitarian conception of
1:49:25 god i just don't see how you could do
1:49:27 that
1:49:28 so the problem if it is a problem i'm
1:49:30 just granting for the sake of argument
1:49:32 that if there is a problem with like
1:49:33 composites
1:49:34 and we have to have a discussion about
1:49:35 divine simplicity that is a problem that
1:49:38 does arise
1:49:39 through natural theology because
1:49:42 it take it does take you natural
1:49:44 theology does take you to the universal
1:49:46 concept
1:49:47 of a unitary being which means that the
1:49:49 conception of a unitary
1:49:51 uh god is more universal it's obviously
1:49:55 universal and the
1:49:56 trinitarian conception of god is not
1:49:58 something that you can arrive at
1:50:00 without revelation so it's it's
1:50:03 it's like the nature of the problems are
1:50:05 entirely different one you arrive at
1:50:07 through reason
1:50:08 and the other is just a problem like
1:50:10 right off the gate from the outset
1:50:13 can i i know i know just in oh sorry i
1:50:15 was just gonna say
1:50:16 no no we've got justin sat there for
1:50:20 ages and we're just kind of ignoring him
1:50:22 so i think it's got
1:50:23 a good point to kind of get him involved
1:50:25 in the conversation how you doing justin
1:50:26 sorry to
1:50:27 i may have brought you in a little bit
1:50:28 early there and it might have been
1:50:30 slightly awkward
1:50:31 i know you guys are good you guys are
1:50:32 good so forgive me
1:50:34 how are you doing i'm i'm good i can you
1:50:37 guys hear me fine
1:50:38 yeah perfect okay cool cool i'm in my
1:50:41 truck and i'm through my bluetooth
1:50:43 speakers i want to make sure
1:50:44 i don't sound like crap on your show
1:50:48 so entertaining conversation with both
1:50:53 of the guests today
1:50:54 frustrating as usual um they took away
1:50:58 both of the points that i was going to
1:50:59 talk to you guys about when i came on
1:51:01 and one of them being something that i
1:51:03 think i mentioned on one of your
1:51:04 previous uh shows
1:51:06 is that when you guys bring up these
1:51:09 logical issues within the foundations of
1:51:11 christianity
1:51:12 what they normally fire back with is
1:51:14 ignoring the point at hand
1:51:16 and going straight to flying donkeys
1:51:20 splitting the moon in half muhammad's a
1:51:22 pedophile you know whatever they want to
1:51:24 talk about
1:51:25 and it's not exactly on par with the
1:51:28 arguments that you guys are making for
1:51:29 one it's
1:51:30 a shifting of the goal post it's a red
1:51:32 herring trying to get you off
1:51:34 off of something else and just go in
1:51:36 this direction instead
1:51:37 but a an equivalent argument to the
1:51:41 the splitting of the moons the flying
1:51:42 donkeys the you know
1:51:44 uh the consummation uh that muhammad had
1:51:47 with
1:51:48 you know his wife you know an equivalent
1:51:51 argument for that is if you guys were
1:51:52 like hey christians i got a defeater for
1:51:54 christianity
1:51:55 how in the hell did jonah live in a fish
1:51:57 for three days
1:51:58 like that would be something equivalent
1:52:00 to the arguments that they bring to you
1:52:02 guys
1:52:03 so that was one of the points that one
1:52:05 of the christians your first guest
1:52:06 ended up taking away that i you know
1:52:08 that i wanted to bring up but he did it
1:52:10 on the show
1:52:11 and it kind of like proved my point and
1:52:13 then the second one was the constant
1:52:16 when we get into these discussions at
1:52:18 the very onset of the discussion
1:52:20 is that there is no logical problem it
1:52:22 is concise
1:52:23 it is consistent there are no issues and
1:52:25 i'm confident
1:52:26 and i can show you guys this and at the
1:52:29 very end
1:52:30 we throw up the mystery card multiple
1:52:32 times and like you guys said it's not
1:52:34 exactly
1:52:35 a bad you know it's not it's not exactly
1:52:38 not understandable that we can't fully
1:52:41 understand god
1:52:42 but in something that you're so
1:52:44 confident at the onset
1:52:46 and then throughout the conversation you
1:52:48 say well i mean
1:52:50 he just doesn't adhere to logic or we
1:52:52 just don't
1:52:53 understand it it's it's kind of
1:52:55 counter-intuitive
1:52:56 to the attitude or demeanor that you had
1:52:58 at the onset of the argument
1:53:00 yeah and this is a this is a point that
1:53:02 i pointed out in a
1:53:04 discussion with somebody else but it
1:53:06 applies here in the same way
1:53:08 if they would have come on from the
1:53:10 beginning and say hey look guys
1:53:13 i understand what your problem is but
1:53:15 you have to understand
1:53:16 the trinity is a mystery we cannot fully
1:53:18 understand god
1:53:20 and i'm not going to be able to give you
1:53:22 an answer to these difficult questions
1:53:24 then in some sense i could respect that
1:53:27 and not that i don't respect
1:53:29 the two guys that we had on because i
1:53:31 think i i do and we had a good
1:53:33 conversation
1:53:34 but what actually happened especially
1:53:36 with the
1:53:37 second gentleman neo as he came on
1:53:40 and he made the claim that our arguments
1:53:44 were due
1:53:45 to misconceptions of what the
1:53:47 trinitarian
1:53:48 doctrine is and what the trinitarians
1:53:51 actually believe
1:53:52 and that there really is no problem and
1:53:55 then when we got into the argument
1:53:57 it flipped around and and said well no
1:54:00 actually i don't have a good answer to
1:54:02 this thing
1:54:02 this is a legitimate problem and here's
1:54:05 the mystery card
1:54:06 so that's what that's what is
1:54:08 frustrating that
1:54:10 it's it's not necessarily the answer
1:54:13 it's the sequence of the events
1:54:15 it's sort of like a moving of the goal
1:54:17 post that you're mentioning justin
1:54:19 they start off with a certain demeanor
1:54:22 and a certain
1:54:22 answer and then when we get into the
1:54:25 actual argument of the conversation
1:54:27 it switches to something else and so
1:54:30 that's what i just find
1:54:32 a little bit frustrating although i did
1:54:35 really enjoy the conversations
1:54:37 but it i understand what you're saying
1:54:39 and it can be
1:54:40 a little bit frustrating yeah and
1:54:44 go interesting so well i was just going
1:54:47 to say so since they took both of my
1:54:49 points
1:54:49 i had to at the last minute come up with
1:54:51 something else to bring you guys
1:54:53 so i actually came up with an argument
1:54:55 that you guys will not be able to refute
1:54:58 okay okay and i even i even played it
1:55:01 out here for you
1:55:02 i wrote it down so so we got the three
1:55:05 persons of god that we've been talking
1:55:06 about today so one plus one plus one
1:55:08 obviously equals three
1:55:10 so if it obviously equals three there's
1:55:13 also
1:55:13 uh space time and matter so if you add
1:55:15 the space time and matter
1:55:17 you get six right so within
1:55:20 six space time and matter through
1:55:22 absolute divine simplicity
1:55:24 would be uh would be identical to each
1:55:27 other so you have
1:55:28 three sixes right here they're identical
1:55:30 to each other there's nothing
1:55:32 different between them which 666 is
1:55:35 what comes out of that 666 equals
1:55:37 atheism
1:55:39 prove me wrong
1:55:40Laughter 1:55:50 it's true because it follows its own
1:55:51 logic
1:55:54 and it's a mystery yeah
1:55:57 but just on this point about mystery you
1:55:59 know i tried to preempt the point
1:56:01 at the beginning when i said that look
1:56:04 the mystery card can't be used
1:56:06 because there is people making claims
1:56:10 about god like for example somebody
1:56:12 knocking on the door and saying that the
1:56:14 guy
1:56:14 is six feet tall and five feet tall at
1:56:17 the same time and you're like well how
1:56:18 does that work
1:56:19 you then have to explain how it works
1:56:22 and how it's not a contradiction
1:56:24 and in the same way when they turn
1:56:26 around and say jesus is god holy ghost
1:56:28 is god the father is god but there is
1:56:30 exactly one god
1:56:31 but they're not the same people persons
1:56:34 amongst each other
1:56:35 then you have to explain how this works
1:56:38 because the problem that you've got and
1:56:40 this is the
1:56:40 this is the issue that within
1:56:42 christianity that that they have to
1:56:44 resolve
1:56:45 is how does that look anything different
1:56:48 to try theism yeah because they will say
1:56:51 no no it's not tritheism
1:56:53 so you have to then demonstrate the so
1:56:56 they might say
1:56:56 well you got one being in three persons
1:56:58 then the question becomes what does a
1:56:59 person mean
1:57:00 and how does that relate to a being and
1:57:02 how do the persons relate to each other
1:57:04 are the exact same thing
1:57:05 etc and then you start to say well
1:57:08 there's a mystery but then
1:57:10 the first discussion has not been solved
1:57:12 which was
1:57:13 how do you solve the problem of what
1:57:15 we're seeing as apparent contradictions
1:57:17 within the text
1:57:18 now i think even our first guest he made
1:57:20 the point didn't he he started
1:57:22 with the argument about superposition
1:57:24 quantum superposition
1:57:26 yeah yeah we started explaining to him
1:57:29 that actually
1:57:30 the way the wave function collapses on
1:57:32 observation and measurement
1:57:34 to a photon so it's not the case that it
1:57:37 then
1:57:37 also exists as a wave and as a photo
1:57:40 yeah yeah i wanted to share
1:57:42 a video on that as well actually it
1:57:44 might be a good moment to kind of segue
1:57:46 into this
1:57:47 um it's a short video but it bohmian
1:57:50 mechanics
1:57:51 i think does a really good job at kind
1:57:52 of dealing i'll be honest with you
1:57:55 has been uh refuted it has
1:57:58 yeah it's what
1:58:02 boom is it bulma i think his name was
1:58:04 what he tried to do is he tried to argue
1:58:06 that
1:58:07 on the quantum level that cannot be
1:58:09 unpredictability
1:58:10 there has to be the ability to predict
1:58:13 every single particle
1:58:14 in its position in its motion he then
1:58:17 said that the wave function itself
1:58:20 has some hidden variable
1:58:23 that allows us to predict where the
1:58:25 thing or the particle will be at that
1:58:26 particular moment in time yeah
1:58:28 so that it's deterministic follows a
1:58:30 deterministic course
1:58:33 but that hidden variable in essence has
1:58:36 been proven to be
1:58:37 incorrect and wrong and it just doesn't
1:58:40 it
1:58:40 it just doesn't fit within the mass and
1:58:43 it also creates more problems
1:58:44 within quantum mechanics so there's a
1:58:47 video here specifically on the double
1:58:49 slit experiment it's only short so i'll
1:58:50 play it can you just tell me
1:58:52 like where specifically they get
1:58:53 something wrong because
1:58:55 i'll bring it up i'll try it inshallah
1:59:01 run
1:59:02 of the experiment how does formula
1:59:04 mechanics account for the double slit
1:59:06 experiment
1:59:07 i mean how is it possible that we can
1:59:09 see an interference pattern
1:59:10 even if we know that the particle went
1:59:12 through only one of the two slits
1:59:15 us just go through the experimental
1:59:17 facts step by step
1:59:20 each run of the experiment just one
1:59:23 single spot
1:59:24 appears on the detection screen in
1:59:27 bohmian mechanics
1:59:28 one identifies the spot with a point
1:59:31 particle
1:59:33 this particle runs from the source
1:59:36 to the screen on a continuous path
1:59:39 and the flow goes through just one of
1:59:41 the slits
1:59:43 but even though the particle goes
1:59:45 through just one of the slits
1:59:46 the other slits being open or closed
1:59:50 influences what happens so the particle
1:59:54 is in a sense not free some additional
1:59:57 physics
1:59:57 physical entity is present and must be
2:00:01 considered in the description
2:00:03 the appearance of the interference
2:00:05 fringes suggests
2:00:07 that this additional entity must be some
2:00:10 kind of wave
2:00:12 the steps naturally lead to the bohmian
2:00:15 description
2:00:16 of this experiment each particle follows
2:00:20 a continuous trajectory
2:00:21 that can necessarily just go through one
2:00:24 of the slits
2:00:26 but also a wave is present that guides
2:00:29 the particle movement and travels across
2:00:32 both slits
2:00:33 the wave is responsible for the
2:00:36 appearance of the interference pattern
2:00:39 one important point in the analysis of
2:00:42 the double slit experiment
2:00:44 is usually considered to be the fact
2:00:46 that
2:00:47 if one determines so that's basically
2:00:50 the gist of it it's just this idea that
2:00:53 um the reason you're getting this
2:00:55 interference pattern is when the
2:00:56 particle's going through it so if you
2:00:57 imagine like
2:00:58 uh there's a port with two entrances and
2:01:01 if
2:01:01 ships are going in and they just barrel
2:01:04 in through the
2:01:05 uh the slits forward they're just going
2:01:07 to go in a straight line and crash into
2:01:09 the bay
2:01:10 um you know in the same place whereas if
2:01:12 you've got a lot of waves
2:01:14 going on and you know these waves are
2:01:16 hitting the entrances to the poor
2:01:18 boats that go in are going to get pulled
2:01:19 along with these waves as they go
2:01:20 through
2:01:21 and you'll end up with an interference
2:01:23 pattern on the beach basically like
2:01:24 they're all kind of being dragged around
2:01:26 all over the show
2:01:27 um and so this accounts for the
2:01:30 interference pattern
2:01:32 and i guess maybe um you could explain
2:01:35 the fact that when there's an
2:01:36 observation taking place
2:01:38 uh that the wave pattern collapses is
2:01:41 because the observation itself is
2:01:42 causing more waves
2:01:44 in in some way or there's um yeah you
2:01:46 know because when you
2:01:47 have two waves kind of hitting each
2:01:48 other they cancel out so maybe that
2:01:50 observation process is affecting it and
2:01:52 so
2:01:53 this deals with this idea that the
2:01:55 particle is doing two contradictory
2:01:57 things
2:01:58 um i don't see how that would
2:02:00 necessarily have been
2:02:01 refuted by what you said um
2:02:05 yeah or do you still feel like it was
2:02:07 yeah so
2:02:08 uh it's it's going it's departing from
2:02:11 the concept
2:02:12 discussion on the trinity no it no it's
2:02:15 related to the trinity because people
2:02:16 bring this up
2:02:18 as a reason as to why we should abandon
2:02:20 logic when it comes to certain things
2:02:22 like why you can say
2:02:23 that two things a and not a can both be
2:02:27 the same at the same time so the the
2:02:28 whole slit experiment the point of this
2:02:30 and bringing this up is to say no
2:02:32 because the the split
2:02:33 is doing contradictory things it is um
2:02:36 both a particle and a wave
2:02:37 simultaneously it is going through one
2:02:39 slit
2:02:40 and the other at the same time it's
2:02:42 going through none of them at the same
2:02:43 time it's going through both of them at
2:02:44 the same time or
2:02:45 only one all of these possibilities
2:02:48 what it is is that it's the uh see
2:02:51 there's different
2:02:52 interpretations obviously you've got the
2:02:54 standard i think copenhagen
2:02:56 interpretation
2:02:57 you've also got the van von neumann
2:02:59 wigner interpretation which was actually
2:03:01 quite a popular interpretation for a
2:03:03 long time
2:03:04 which is that conscious beings are the
2:03:07 things that causes the collapse of the
2:03:09 wave function
2:03:10 it's you looking at it not
2:03:13 the fact that you're using and measuring
2:03:15 equipment that interferes with the wave
2:03:17 pattern
2:03:18 that the hello causes i don't think
2:03:20 that's the most popular one now though
2:03:22 because it's
2:03:22 it's not humans that are observing it
2:03:24 yeah it's the cause
2:03:25 it's the electrical instruments that are
2:03:27 interfering with it we're just dealing
2:03:29 with the results
2:03:30 that's right but the problem with the
2:03:31 electrical instruments is that the
2:03:32 electrical instruments the measuring
2:03:34 device
2:03:35 themselves are also built of quantum
2:03:37 events
2:03:38 so they require an observer in order to
2:03:40 observe them
2:03:41 for them to collapse here uh into a
2:03:44 particular position
2:03:46 so anyway so i'm just saying is that
2:03:47 there's lots of different uh views
2:03:49 towards this
2:03:50 now in essence what they did was they
2:03:52 said okay
2:03:53 let's assume there's a hidden variable
2:03:55 if there's a hidden variable
2:03:56 we could maybe work out what that hidden
2:03:58 variable is in order to make the
2:04:00 mathematics work
2:04:01 and what they've at all they also said
2:04:03 is it the measurement that's causing
2:04:05 the effect of the particle because in
2:04:07 essence what they're trying to do is
2:04:08 they're trying to say
2:04:10 uh it becomes probabilistic on the local
2:04:13 level on a quantum level
2:04:15 to identify the position and also
2:04:18 the emotional speed of a particle yeah
2:04:20 on a quantum level
2:04:22 it's probabilistic the more you try to
2:04:24 work out the position
2:04:26 the less you're able to work out the
2:04:27 speed and vice versa
2:04:29 so they're saying is it because we're
2:04:30 looking at it and we're sending out
2:04:33 you know light waves or photons that are
2:04:35 affecting it yeah not
2:04:36 our eyes are doing it our instruments
2:04:39 are doing that yeah
2:04:40 but they said no it's not that it's not
2:04:42 because there's a hidden
2:04:44 variable or there's influence of the
2:04:46 measuring device
2:04:47 upon what we're trying to observe they
2:04:49 said no it is actually an
2:04:50 in principle problem that you can never
2:04:53 work out
2:04:53 both these two things at the same time
2:04:56 now from a muslim perspective this has
2:04:58 absolutely no
2:04:59 you know issue regards to uh our
2:05:02 metaphysics because people sometimes say
2:05:05 well yeah but you basically say allowing
2:05:07 something that's
2:05:08 non-deterministic yeah that doesn't
2:05:11 follow causality therefore how can cause
2:05:13 out to be true
2:05:14 but all this would show is that
2:05:17 materialistic causation is not
2:05:19 necessarily true it does not refute
2:05:22 causality
2:05:23 in and of itself as a metaphysical
2:05:26 principle
2:05:27 so if there's no naturalistic causes
2:05:30 to explain on a quantum level then the
2:05:33 cause would be
2:05:34 non-naturalistic yeah and then we're
2:05:37 getting into the volume and weakness
2:05:39 interpretation of quantum mechanics yeah
2:05:42 so in terms of trinity doesn't work
2:05:45 because
2:05:46 obviously as soon as you observe it or
2:05:47 you have a measuring device
2:05:49 it collapses into a particular particle
2:05:51 or particular location
2:05:53 and in that situation it's not now
2:05:57 both a particle and a wave it is how you
2:06:00 measured it
2:06:01 that will influence what type of thing
2:06:04 it will represent yeah or the collapse
2:06:07 of the wave function
2:06:08 in that situation so it's not the case
2:06:11 that they don't follow
2:06:12 logic quantum level events it's the fact
2:06:16 that they are counterintuitive to what
2:06:18 we expect
2:06:20 yeah so so we still we
2:06:23 because when we talk about probability
2:06:25 we're not going outside of logic when we
2:06:27 use
2:06:28 quantum mechanics physical equations to
2:06:31 make certain predictions even if it's
2:06:34 probabilistic
2:06:35 it's still following you're still using
2:06:37 mass and mass
2:06:38 itself has to is actually built upon the
2:06:41 axioms of logic
2:06:42 as well so it's not going outside of
2:06:45 logic people
2:06:46 and everything goes back to that first
2:06:47 sorry that first uh
2:06:49 caller who said well how can you believe
2:06:52 in this moon split in
2:06:54 but at the same time not believe in the
2:06:55 trinity there are no
2:06:57 it's not they're not propositionally the
2:07:00 same thing
2:07:01 one's a logical we're saying it's a
2:07:03 logical impossibility
2:07:04 you know trinity the concept of you know
2:07:07 three persons one god
2:07:08 and the other one is a um
2:07:12 is a logical possibility not saying it's
2:07:14 it can happen
2:07:16 but as in like human beings can make
2:07:17 this happen but it's not something that
2:07:20 breaks
2:07:20 logical laws yeah and it just kind of
2:07:24 um highlight on that comment it's it's
2:07:26 not going off topic because it's
2:07:27 specifically using um we're discussing
2:07:30 this
2:07:31 because of the fact that obviously when
2:07:32 we're talking about the committee we're
2:07:33 saying that there's a logical problem
2:07:35 and i've heard this kind of contention
2:07:38 be brought up
2:07:39 um as a reason as to why we can
2:07:40 disregard logic
2:07:42 um so discussing this is important
2:07:45 disregarding logic part just very
2:07:47 quickly
2:07:47 i mean i mean like when you're talking
2:07:50 about uh
2:07:51 like dial atheism i think it's known as
2:07:53 which which is that true contradictions
2:07:55 can
2:07:56 exist i think
2:07:59 whoever is advocating for that kind of
2:08:01 view is kind of shooting himself in the
2:08:02 foot
2:08:03 in terms of being able to know anything
2:08:05 in the first place like um
2:08:07 and and i think like uh what's known as
2:08:09 the principle of explosion is one of the
2:08:10 main criticisms of dilutivism that
2:08:13 just if if true contradictions can exist
2:08:16 then
2:08:16 literally anything can happen and
2:08:19 you could you could literally be right
2:08:21 and wrong at the same time
2:08:23 so it kind of opens the floodgates to
2:08:26 like
2:08:26 a a very radical and unhealthy kind of
2:08:29 skepticism
2:08:30 of course there are there are there's
2:08:33 work
2:08:34 done by a philosopher named grain priest
2:08:36 about in
2:08:37 para consistent logic where he tries to
2:08:39 say that he tries to evade this
2:08:41 uh uh problem of this prince this
2:08:44 principle of explosion
2:08:45 uh and and he tries to advocate for the
2:08:48 reality that that there are true
2:08:49 contradictions that dilution is true but
2:08:51 but
2:08:52 i mean that's a really huge ontological
2:08:54 cost to pay
2:08:56 for for any kind of epistemology you're
2:08:59 gonna put forward
2:09:00 and i'm not sure that anyone really
2:09:02 actually thinks like that i mean so to
2:09:04 to propose this this this kind of um
2:09:08 uh uh to propose that the dilutionism is
2:09:11 true or that true contradictions can
2:09:12 exist
2:09:13 in order to just you know get get out of
2:09:15 a problem
2:09:16 i think that the the consequences of
2:09:18 that are huge
2:09:20 they're really huge because literally
2:09:23 anything can be right like like in the
2:09:25 case of the discussion about the trinity
2:09:26 in islam both islam and christianity can
2:09:28 be both
2:09:29 true and false at the same time i mean
2:09:33 if contradictory statements can be true
2:09:35 then trinity can be both true and false
2:09:37 at the same time right
2:09:38 yeah but yeah yeah i mean by the way
2:09:41 grand priest
2:09:42 is from the uk so i mean what does he
2:09:44 really know anyway
2:09:46Laughter 2:09:48 you know just i want to bring justin in
2:09:50 because justin he made a really
2:09:51 interesting uh
2:09:52 point a couple of days ago in a private
2:09:54 chat that we're having
2:09:55 uh remember justin you were talking
2:09:57 about the you know the transcendental
2:09:59 argument a lot of christians come out
2:10:00 with
2:10:01 the idea that how do you know you know
2:10:03 you can only ground rationality
2:10:05 in a rational god in essence i don't
2:10:08 know if you want to explain further what
2:10:10 you were saying
2:10:12 because you sort of to abdul rahman said
2:10:15 well what
2:10:15 what's your point to what i was saying
2:10:17 because i mean sometimes when i go off i
2:10:19 i black out i don't even remember what
2:10:22 i'm saying
2:10:23 so you you mentioned so what a number of
2:10:25 christians do
2:10:26 and they they argue for even though it's
2:10:29 not a uniquely christian argument they
2:10:30 tried to say that
2:10:32 you can't ground any rational truths
2:10:35 because as a materialist as an atheist
2:10:38 because how do you know materialism and
2:10:40 atheism is leading you to true ideas
2:10:43 yeah yeah and therefore there must be
2:10:46 something more than material
2:10:48 to ground it and they say therefore it
2:10:50 must be a rational god
2:10:53 do you remember the argument now that
2:10:54 you mentioned i i think i remember the
2:10:56 conversation we were having yeah
2:10:57 yeah i think you mentioned yeah jake
2:11:00 yeah i mentioned it to jake i had a
2:11:01 question that i asked him
2:11:03 that i thought was a really interesting
2:11:05 question i'm trying to remember what i
2:11:06 asked him
2:11:08 um let me repeat the
2:11:11 just so the audience knows isn't it so
2:11:14 you said if trinitarians appeal to
2:11:18 mystery and say it's
2:11:19 a logical it's outside the bounds of
2:11:22 logic
2:11:24 then they can't ground any logic or
2:11:27 rationality
2:11:28 yeah okay okay yeah so they're appealing
2:11:30 to an
2:11:31 irrational being to say that we
2:11:34 therefore have rational ideas
2:11:37 because they're saying yes you know this
2:11:38 is how you come to belief in god is
2:11:40 through this presuppositionist
2:11:41 argument but then they're coming to a
2:11:44 conclusion that there's this
2:11:45 illogical creator that can literally do
2:11:48 exist and not exist exist as free people
2:11:51 but all yeah
2:11:53 all these such things if you're if your
2:11:56 rationality comes from god and your god
2:11:59 holds an irrational or a rational
2:12:01 position as some of our other
2:12:02 christian friends would say that the
2:12:04 trinity is a rational it's just not
2:12:06 rationable or we can't rationalize
2:12:09 the conception of the trinity well then
2:12:12 if your rationality itself your own
2:12:14 personal rationality comes from that and
2:12:16 is grounded
2:12:17 in that idea of god well then how could
2:12:19 you ever be rational how could you ever
2:12:21 go out an atheist and say
2:12:23 well you know you don't have a
2:12:25 metaphysical uh
2:12:26 you know grounding or an ultimacy of
2:12:28 reality for your
2:12:30 intelligibility how could you ever go at
2:12:32 somebody
2:12:33 with with that type of argument when
2:12:36 yours holds no
2:12:37 you know your idea how holds no water
2:12:40 and i mean that's that's something else
2:12:42 that did happen on the show today just
2:12:44 to
2:12:44 tag this along in with that is that our
2:12:47 first guest your first guest had stated
2:12:50 that
2:12:51 well and this happens a lot with
2:12:52 christians is why are you limiting god
2:12:55 well i think it's perfectly fine to
2:12:57 limit god if the bible says so
2:13:00 the bible says he can't sin he can't lie
2:13:02 he can't act outside of his nature
2:13:04 yeah so i mean if if we adhere to all
2:13:06 these three things what's so wrong about
2:13:08 limiting god
2:13:10 like if you're going to say and i think
2:13:12 sharif you brought up a great point
2:13:13 if you're going to say that god can
2:13:16 literally do anything
2:13:18 outside apart from logic and he
2:13:20 transcends logic itself
2:13:22 well then we literally i i mean my my
2:13:24 flying spaghetti monster has immaterial
2:13:26 pasta
2:13:27 and and he can do whatever he wants
2:13:29 whenever he wants
2:13:30 and also not do it simultaneously so
2:13:34 that he knows but he doesn't know
2:13:36 and you could just you could just make
2:13:37 this completely absurd statement
2:13:39 and then if if you're if you're making a
2:13:42 claim that i believe in christianity
2:13:44 and not this immaterial noodle flying
2:13:46 spaghetti monster thing
2:13:47 well then what methodology do you use to
2:13:50 figure out which one of them actually
2:13:52 exists
2:13:52 and which one of them doesn't that this
2:13:54 is the biggest problem i think with this
2:13:56 claim because it sort of undermines any
2:13:57 apologetics
2:13:58 any apologetic attempts like how if if
2:14:02 you can say
2:14:02 anything about god how on earth like
2:14:04 what's the how
2:14:05 is anyone meant to be able to
2:14:07 distinguish the truth between say
2:14:09 hinduism and
2:14:09 christianity or conversation
2:14:13 you can't yeah and that's one of the
2:14:15 most frustrating things as well because
2:14:16 it
2:14:17 it kind of it again it shoots itself in
2:14:20 the foot it's like
2:14:21 uh you know that we can say anything and
2:14:24 you know it's uh possibly true but then
2:14:27 it's like
2:14:28 we kept making particular claims and
2:14:29 they were always wrong
2:14:31 it's like well you're you're still stuck
2:14:33 in this binary thinking
2:14:34 of something can be true and something
2:14:36 can be false because you're not allowing
2:14:38 us to make
2:14:39 any claims and you're you're completely
2:14:40 removing that
2:14:42 from the realm of possibility and you're
2:14:44 saying no blah blah blah
2:14:45 and as well i don't think it's so much
2:14:48 as
2:14:48 us putting limits on god but when we're
2:14:50 talking about what's logical we're
2:14:52 talking about inferences from state one
2:14:54 statement to the next
2:14:55 and whether these differences are valid
2:14:57 we're not talking about
2:14:59 like a graph like gravity some force
2:15:02 external on the world
2:15:03 acting upon you we're talking about
2:15:05 whether or not your inferences
2:15:07 are valid that is does it is there you
2:15:09 know like
2:15:10 can you just make a claim a a claim b
2:15:12 and then a claim c
2:15:14 if there is no connection between them
2:15:15 like yeah proposition one
2:15:18 i have a potato proposition two i also
2:15:21 like cheesecake
2:15:22 conclusion therefore dave down the road
2:15:25 is a murderer no it's like
2:15:27 these invalid infants
2:15:30 and saying that such a thing is absurd
2:15:32 is not to say that there is
2:15:34 limits on people like gravity pushes
2:15:36 down on you
2:15:37 or you know the the law um
2:15:40 you need to make it yeah you need to
2:15:42 make a coherent
2:15:44 statement isn't it the words that you're
2:15:47 using have to be coherent
2:15:48 so if i turn around and i say can god
2:15:50 create a squared circle
2:15:52 yeah and i say is that a coherent
2:15:55 statement
2:15:56 yeah is it are we limiting god by saying
2:16:00 god
2:16:00 cannot create a squared circle no
2:16:03 because we're saying the statement
2:16:04 itself is not coherent
2:16:06 it's meaning meaningless you're not
2:16:08 talking about something
2:16:10 and so but and so this is the
2:16:12 distinction i think people
2:16:14 they don't get their head around when
2:16:15 they start to use this whole or you're
2:16:17 limiting god
2:16:18 because you're saying uh that he can't
2:16:19 do something illogical
2:16:21 no when we're saying something's
2:16:22 illogical we're saying that the
2:16:23 statement itself is absurd
2:16:25 meaning yeah that is completely
2:16:27 meaningless and what you're referring to
2:16:28 isn't a thing it's like if you tell me
2:16:31 go up to the stairs down the stairs
2:16:35 i'm going to be like what are you on
2:16:36 about what are you trying to tell me to
2:16:38 do here
2:16:39 do you want me to go up the stairs or do
2:16:41 you want me to go down the stairs and
2:16:42 like what you want about go
2:16:43 up the stairs down the stairs like no no
2:16:45 you you're not
2:16:46 saying anything you're not with you're
2:16:49 just making noises at this point it's
2:16:50 there's nothing clear here with the with
2:16:53 the first guest that you guys had
2:16:54 jake had made a really good point and i
2:16:57 almost ended up breaking my nose i
2:16:59 palm so hard just because jake had asked
2:17:02 he said
2:17:03 he said um do you believe
2:17:07 that that god can choose to stop
2:17:10 existing yeah and the guy said yeah yeah
2:17:14 he can
2:17:15 and i'm like earlier in the conversation
2:17:17 you just said that
2:17:18 god's eternality was a necessary
2:17:22 uh property of his existence so
2:17:26 what do you what do you even mean by
2:17:28 that now like yeah
2:17:29 it it didn't make any sense i was i i
2:17:33 i i could notice it right off the bat
2:17:35 and i was like wondering how
2:17:37 he didn't he didn't notice that he just
2:17:39 did that
2:17:40 yeah when i appealed to when i appealed
2:17:42 to the bible
2:17:43 uh he started getting upset in the
2:17:45 beginning he said yeah well bible i
2:17:47 believe hundred percent and then when we
2:17:49 started going in the bible
2:17:50 well you know there it could be daif
2:17:53 like
2:17:54 week week it could be like a week
2:17:56 narration like what are we talking about
2:17:58 and i
2:17:59 i didn't even get a chance to really
2:18:01 read but i mean just
2:18:02 one scripture in hebrews 6 18 which he
2:18:05 didn't want to go to
2:18:07 it says so that by two unchangeable
2:18:09 things
2:18:10 in which it is impossible for god to lie
2:18:14 we who have fled for refuge might have
2:18:16 strong encouragement to hold fast to the
2:18:18 hope set before us
2:18:20 but the point is the verse says that
2:18:22 it's impossible for god to lie
2:18:24 and there's a couple other passages that
2:18:26 pretty much say the same thing but
2:18:27 to be fair just so we don't put words in
2:18:30 his mouth and straw man him
2:18:32 i think you initially misheard him
2:18:34 because he said he
2:18:35 doesn't he doesn't have to believe 100
2:18:38 with us so i think that's what he was
2:18:39 saying
2:18:40 okay uh and we were dealing with with
2:18:42 with uh someone who doesn't really
2:18:44 like he isn't really uh doesn't really
2:18:46 think the scripture is infallible or
2:18:47 something
2:18:48 and this is the thing yeah how do you
2:18:50 determine what part of the scripture you
2:18:52 can accept and what part you can reject
2:18:54 like yeah at least like for example with
2:18:56 the hadith um
2:18:57 we've got a very strict way of
2:19:00 approaching it
2:19:01 you know there's the train of
2:19:01 transmission and we have to have
2:19:03 knowledge about the people within the
2:19:05 transmission
2:19:06 what kind of people were they like were
2:19:07 they known to be liars where they know
2:19:09 this
2:19:09 that's why it was difficult to have the
2:19:11 discussion because if you say that you
2:19:12 don't i mean i was i was hoping he says
2:19:14 that he does accept what the bible says
2:19:16 a hundred percent of time
2:19:17 because then at least you have some
2:19:18 basis to work with
2:19:20 like you can you can tell yeah and even
2:19:22 if he was going to reject
2:19:24 the bible in some instances so explain
2:19:26 to us what it is
2:19:28 that allows you like how do you
2:19:30 determine what parts of the bible you're
2:19:31 supposed to be rejecting
2:19:33 because like he's logically impossible
2:19:36 yeah yeah because he's still
2:19:39 he was still using that made sense to
2:19:41 the mind
2:19:43 or that which came into conflict with
2:19:44 the position that he was putting forward
2:19:46 but it's like well if you know
2:19:50 it it becomes impossible to have a
2:19:51 conversation at that point because
2:19:53 anything you say that comes into
2:19:55 conflict is just like logic doesn't
2:19:56 matter
2:19:57 and so long as it's reinforcing his
2:19:59 position logic is then
2:20:00 reinstated again and it's like you're
2:20:03 picking and choosing it and there's no
2:20:06 clear explanation as to when that mode
2:20:09 has been flipped or why
2:20:10 it just happens when it happens to be in
2:20:13 conflict and
2:20:13 and the whole problem is that it's
2:20:15 presupposing the thing that it's trying
2:20:17 to deny
2:20:18 it's saying at this point it just
2:20:20 becomes unfair because
2:20:21 he's allowed to switch between using
2:20:23 logic and not having any
2:20:25 logical um well i think i i think it's
2:20:28 basically in this this
2:20:30 is what narrows it down is that the
2:20:32 methodology
2:20:33 that he used to in what i think most
2:20:36 people that i've interacted with
2:20:38 um religious wise um and i'll say this
2:20:41 as an atheist you know most people that
2:20:43 i've come in contact with
2:20:45 they will deny and not not everybody but
2:20:48 some will deny
2:20:50 the parts of the bible that they
2:20:51 personally don't accept like
2:20:53 that's why you find christians that
2:20:55 accept homosexuality
2:20:57 and that think that it's perfectly fine
2:20:59 they they find they take those
2:21:01 scripture the scripture that speaks
2:21:03 against homosexuality and says oh we
2:21:04 don't need to pay attention to that
2:21:06 yeah there's an interesting back and
2:21:09 forth with
2:21:10 that ip guy what's his name inspired
2:21:12 philosophy
2:21:13 and uh basically like there was this
2:21:15 whole issue about um
2:21:17 the capital punishment for apostates in
2:21:20 islam
2:21:20 and he's setting himself up with like
2:21:22 anyone who holds this position is an
2:21:24 enemy of me
2:21:25 and we tried pointing out like listen
2:21:27 the old testament
2:21:29 is quite explicit here look at
2:21:31 deuteronomy
2:21:32 you know it's it's you can't really what
2:21:34 else can you say about this there's no
2:21:35 ambiguity here it's quite
2:21:37 clear-cut statements and he went to this
2:21:40 whole um
2:21:41 idea of the old testament was not
2:21:43 legislative that it was
2:21:45 he referred to as wisdom literature and
2:21:47 uh
2:21:48 which is really funny because like he he
2:21:51 the
2:21:51 particular verses he was bringing up um
2:21:53 were from the new testament but there
2:21:55 was also a verse
2:21:56 in the new testament um where jesus says
2:21:58 to make sure you follow
2:22:00 the uh what they call the philippians
2:22:03 who are the or the philistines what
2:22:05 didn't it well i can't remember the
2:22:11 do what the pharisees say um but don't
2:22:14 imitate how they act because they say
2:22:16 things but don't you know they're
2:22:17 hypocrites they don't do these things
2:22:18 and so it's making
2:22:19 it quite explicitly you're to follow the
2:22:22 law
2:22:23 and that you know it's referring to it
2:22:24 as law in the new testament with the old
2:22:26 testament
2:22:26 and so you can you can't escape this
2:22:29 idea that the old testament was
2:22:30 legislative
2:22:32 um but obviously like in order to hold
2:22:35 these certain things
2:22:36 and be able to say certain things that
2:22:37 are abhorrent you have to somehow
2:22:40 explain away the old testament
2:22:42 and this seems like a very convenient
2:22:43 way to do so just to refer to it
2:22:45 as wisdom literature as stories
2:22:47 something that the
2:22:48 um you know the original jews they never
2:22:51 they never took it as legislative
2:22:53 when you know you know within the
2:22:56 literature it's quite clear because at
2:22:58 this point it's like well what are you
2:22:59 considering
2:23:00 the stories about moses and things like
2:23:01 that are these just stories did moses
2:23:04 not exist was he
2:23:05 or was he not a prophet and if if the
2:23:07 new testament
2:23:08 is all kind of um saying that this is
2:23:12 truth this is truth and
2:23:13 the new testament is being predicted by
2:23:15 the old testament everything that is
2:23:16 going to come in the new testament
2:23:18 um is is clarified it's like well if
2:23:20 this is just wisdom literature
2:23:22 and it's you know it's not necessarily
2:23:24 got anything it's just stories to find
2:23:26 nice little morals in blah blah blah how
2:23:29 are you then
2:23:30 rooting the new testament in it like
2:23:32 yeah it gets uh
2:23:34 really weird but it's interesting
2:23:36 because uh
2:23:37 we were having a conversation with a
2:23:39 couple christians i think it was
2:23:41 yesterday
2:23:41 i think justin was there and we were
2:23:44 being told the exact
2:23:45 opposite that deuteronomy was the law
2:23:48 book of the jews
2:23:49 like it wasn't wisdom literature it was
2:23:52 the law book for the jews so
2:23:54 it's interesting that um you know
2:23:57 christians have a different perspective
2:23:59 i think the fact that it was a law book
2:24:01 for the jews is
2:24:02 actually what it was much more
2:24:04 consistently the second
2:24:06 last thing i want to point out about the
2:24:08 whole um
2:24:09 quantum physics thing is that look any
2:24:12 anybody who's using quantum physics as a
2:24:16 sort of
2:24:16 argument to explain another thing that
2:24:19 is apparently
2:24:21 unexplainable or mysterious that should
2:24:23 be a tip
2:24:24 off that there's an issue because you're
2:24:27 using quantum mechanics which
2:24:29 is a a thing that right now
2:24:33 is mysterious even to quantum physicists
2:24:36 and you're using that as an analogy
2:24:39 to explain the incomprehensible nature
2:24:42 of god
2:24:43 or these apparent contradictions that
2:24:45 you can't explain
2:24:46 well and i'm not just putting that on
2:24:48 trinitarians because
2:24:50 other people use quantum physics in this
2:24:53 way
2:24:53 to try to be honest i have used it
2:24:55 myself to argue against determinism
2:24:57 yeah i i just think and muslims have
2:25:00 used it and i'm not bashing brother
2:25:01 yusuf now but
2:25:02 i i just think that we shouldn't be
2:25:04 using that for
2:25:06 really any major point at this point
2:25:09 anyway because
2:25:10 i agree there's so many different
2:25:11 there's so many different
2:25:12 interpretations of it we don't really
2:25:14 know what the right one is or how to
2:25:16 understand
2:25:17 what's happening here so to use that
2:25:21 as a sort of anchor point for
2:25:24 the mysterious nature of god
2:25:28 and trying to alleviate these apparent
2:25:30 contradictions
2:25:31 uh in the trinity i think it's just
2:25:34 really
2:25:34 wrong-headed in a bad way of approaching
2:25:36 the topic
2:25:38 and to be honest i agree that um i have
2:25:40 changed my position and
2:25:41 to be honest the only time i really use
2:25:43 quantum mechanics is like a way of
2:25:44 trying to
2:25:45 um deal with this idea that logic is
2:25:49 is binding or anything i i had when i
2:25:51 ended up looking into bowling mechanics
2:25:52 i had to kind of let that go and i was
2:25:54 like i clearly don't really know
2:25:56 too much about all of this uh it's quite
2:25:58 a mysterious subject field and
2:25:59 it's probably not going to um be
2:26:01 fruitful to kind of bring it up in any
2:26:03 way
2:26:03 go on justin before before we wrap up i
2:26:06 just have a question
2:26:08 why does the guy with the best looking
2:26:10 beard is the only non-muslim in the room
2:26:13 watch your mouth
2:26:16 well it's a sign that you're gonna have
2:26:18 to take your shahada then bro cause
2:26:20 we we can't have you roaming around with
2:26:22 such a glorious beard
2:26:23 hey hey just uh just this morning i
2:26:26 finished up avocado
2:26:27 and i moved on to uh uh sutter three
2:26:31 so i'm reading that and uh and like i
2:26:34 said i've
2:26:34 i've gotten down 114 down pat now um i
2:26:38 i think so so that's the let's say you
2:26:40 go for it again
2:26:43 putting them on the spot
2:26:51Music 2:27:00 oh
2:27:09Music 2:27:21 the fact that even when i'm putting you
2:27:22 on the spot you're still
2:27:24 you're dealing with it well so yeah good
2:27:27 job
2:27:28 keep it up and also learning you know
2:27:30 what
2:27:32 it actually means because like just the
2:27:33 other day we were having a conversation
2:27:35 as i go through the surahs um
2:27:38 i have questions about certain things
2:27:40 like talk to jake about uh
2:27:43 iblis and and what exactly lisa is and
2:27:46 you know um
2:27:48 talked about uh zarat is that is that
2:27:51 am i saying that correctly the uh
2:27:54 obligatory
2:27:56 uh
2:28:02 obligatory charity that you have to give
2:28:04 uh i i guess the
2:28:06 at the end of i think it's like i uh 283
2:28:10 i think it is
2:28:11 um it states that you know when signing
2:28:13 for a loan and you have the scribe you
2:28:15 know that's writing down the loan
2:28:17 you need to have two male witnesses and
2:28:20 if you if you don't have two male
2:28:22 witnesses and you only have one
2:28:24 then you need to grab two female
2:28:26 witnesses
2:28:28 to make up for the one male witness
2:28:30 that's not there
2:28:31 and me as like a humanist i'm like all
2:28:34 about equality i'm like
2:28:35 well why do you need two females to make
2:28:37 up for one dude like come on
2:28:39 but uh you know like i said i'm not
2:28:41 going to argue against it because i mean
2:28:42 this was the understanding at the time
2:28:45 just like you know you know when the
2:28:47 christians argue with slavery
2:28:49 i don't argue moral issues with the
2:28:51 bible anymore i think it's
2:28:53 pointless especially for my position as
2:28:55 a moral nihilist
2:28:57 and a heart determinist why why do i why
2:29:00 would i even
2:29:01 like argue morality with anybody i i
2:29:04 know you
2:29:04 you you mentioned this before as well in
2:29:06 the court but i wasn't able to answer it
2:29:09 but just really quickly um people use
2:29:12 these particular verses and rulings
2:29:14 and try to generalize and that's the
2:29:16 problem because
2:29:18 many times there are many other
2:29:20 incidents
2:29:21 instances in which the witness testimony
2:29:25 of a woman is greater than that of a man
2:29:27 and in the normal situation it's equal
2:29:29 to the other man
2:29:31 yeah and in terms of like you know when
2:29:33 we talk about hadith
2:29:34 and we classify hadith it's irrespective
2:29:38 whether it's a male or a female that's
2:29:40 narrating the hadith
2:29:41 they're considered equal yeah that's to
2:29:44 do with
2:29:44 the source of the deen it's a source of
2:29:47 that's cool that's cool
2:29:48 yeah so my question would be why do we
2:29:50 need
2:29:51 two females so one of them being in
2:29:54 place yeah
2:29:55 yeah so there might be a couple of
2:29:57 explanations for it obviously
2:29:58 god knows best as to why he made this um
2:30:01 particular distinction
2:30:02 for example he was making mention of the
2:30:03 hadith there uh so
2:30:05 um she uh
2:30:08 related probably the most i think
2:30:10 correct me from wrong hadith
2:30:12 than anybody and we didn't require
2:30:16 after every
2:30:20 and this verse wasn't applied in this
2:30:22 context so with regards to things like
2:30:24 um contracts for loans and money that
2:30:26 you you can look at modern
2:30:28 um so in sweden it's the most
2:30:31 egalitarian place in the world and
2:30:35 uh they they based this assumption that
2:30:37 if we uh remove
2:30:38 all these restrictions in society that
2:30:41 the male and female will end up
2:30:42 acting the same and they'll be making
2:30:44 the same decisions and they'll be doing
2:30:45 this
2:30:46 and that and that you'll just see like a
2:30:48 correlation 50 50
2:30:50 in every subject field now in the
2:30:52 attempt to make
2:30:53 the society more egalitarian and remove
2:30:55 these restrictions
2:30:56 what you end up seeing is the gender
2:30:57 differences start to accentuate even
2:31:00 further
2:31:01 and their women are acting are doing
2:31:04 things that are more
2:31:05 female orientated or you know
2:31:07 stereotypically
2:31:08 and males are doing things more male
2:31:11 orientated stereotypically
2:31:13 and despite the fact so it seemed not
2:31:16 it was counterintuitive to what they
2:31:18 assumed the restrictions in society
2:31:20 weren't
2:31:20 stopping the genders from becoming more
2:31:23 the same
2:31:24 it was having the opposite effect it was
2:31:26 stopping them from becoming more
2:31:27 different and
2:31:28 and then funnily enough as well if you
2:31:29 go to places like egypt or um
2:31:32 morocco they have a higher uh rate of
2:31:34 gender equality in
2:31:36 the stem fields or like you have more
2:31:38 women applying for stem fields subjects
2:31:40 in places that are arab countries and
2:31:42 you do in more egalitarian places like
2:31:44 in
2:31:44 northern europe so with this bringing it
2:31:47 back to the point as to why there may be
2:31:49 a need for
2:31:50 more female witnesses when it comes to
2:31:52 for example financial transactions
2:31:54 might just be more to do with the fact
2:31:55 that male and female have different
2:31:58 interests
2:31:59 and when you come to financial
2:32:01 transactions and things like that
2:32:03 it's maybe much more likely the case
2:32:05 that a male might be more interested in
2:32:06 that sort of subject field
2:32:08 and uh with regards to obviously we have
2:32:10 segregation
2:32:11 policies as well so if there's two
2:32:14 female witnesses
2:32:14 they can obviously discuss things in
2:32:16 private and um there's less
2:32:18 controversy surrounding i guess my only
2:32:20 question was what is the relevance of
2:32:22 the interest of witnesses they are only
2:32:24 simply there to witness something not
2:32:26 give what they're interested about
2:32:28 no no no it's i think what it is is that
2:32:30 what uh joseph was mentioned earlier is
2:32:32 that
2:32:33 historically in terms of the arab world
2:32:36 in that time
2:32:37 the women weren't engaged in financial
2:32:39 dealings yeah so they weren't aware of
2:32:41 these types of things
2:32:43 and so although this is not a legal
2:32:45 reasoning behind the particular
2:32:47 ruling on this issue this is what people
2:32:50 have
2:32:51 discussed as a context behind this
2:32:52 particular rule that the context
2:32:54 was that this was things that wasn't
2:32:58 naturally known to the women that's why
2:33:01 what you find is that those things which
2:33:03 are naturally known to women
2:33:05 like for example uh suckling of mothers
2:33:08 you know in islam if i just read about
2:33:11 that yeah
2:33:12 right okay yeah so if a woman gives
2:33:14 suckle
2:33:15 to a child then they become like mother
2:33:18 and
2:33:18 child basically yeah they they become
2:33:22 unmarriageable yeah as an example now in
2:33:25 this situation the testimony of a woman
2:33:28 yeah is considered greater than
2:33:31 the testimony of a man so there was an
2:33:34 incident in time the prophet peace be
2:33:36 upon him
2:33:37 in which uh a woman claimed that she
2:33:40 had given breast milk to two people a
2:33:43 male and a female
2:33:44 who wanted to get married yeah and the
2:33:46 islamic law is
2:33:47 not allowed for them to get married now
2:33:49 they're considered like brother and
2:33:50 sister in milk
2:33:51 yeah there's no again reasoning behind
2:33:53 it's just one of
2:33:54 the rulings within islam and they
2:33:58 the man said she's lying the woman's
2:34:00 lying
2:34:01 and the prophet said irrespective her
2:34:04 testimony can't be rejected unless you
2:34:06 proved the like
2:34:08 so the testimony of the woman was taken
2:34:11 over that of the man
2:34:12 because in that particular area she had
2:34:15 expertise
2:34:16 so that's what i'm saying is it's not in
2:34:19 islam the general relation
2:34:21 obviously we can do a for podcast on
2:34:23 this but the general ruling
2:34:25 is that men and women are generally
2:34:28 treated equally as a default position
2:34:31 they are considered equal in terms of
2:34:33 self-worth as human beings
2:34:35 and equal access to salvation where the
2:34:38 natures differ
2:34:40 then there are different rulings to help
2:34:42 complement the family structure
2:34:44 and society at large they're not in
2:34:46 competition and so
2:34:48 there are certain rules that will favor
2:34:49 men in certain respects
2:34:51 and there'll be other rules that will
2:34:52 favor women in other respects yeah
2:34:55 therefore it's not the case of
2:34:57 generalization from a specific set of
2:35:00 rulings
2:35:01 sorry we've gone on a bit for that one
2:35:03 yeah we'll wrap up here
2:35:05 isn't it a closing comment there so yeah
2:35:07 the biggest issue is when people they
2:35:08 take this comment
2:35:09 and they assume that it can be
2:35:10 generalized to all contexts in all
2:35:13 circumstances
2:35:14 even though the verse itself is
2:35:15 extremely specific with regards to when
2:35:18 the double testimony is required
2:35:20 and then obviously if you're making the
2:35:22 claim that oh well there's inequality
2:35:24 here but in another instance of females
2:35:26 testimony is worth more than males then
2:35:28 it's like well
2:35:30 maybe there's a problem with your
2:35:32 perception here you're holding it and
2:35:33 focusing on this problem
2:35:34 but you completely neglect the opposite
2:35:36 and then obviously just just to be clear
2:35:38 i don't want you guys to think that i
2:35:40 was trying to like argue no no no
2:35:42 no when i was when i was when i was
2:35:43 mentioning yeah
2:35:45 no i get you okay when i didn't want to
2:35:46 make you feel like i was
2:35:48 aiming about you i meant with people
2:35:50 that bring this up vindictively
2:35:52 in order to discredit uh the prophet
2:35:53 muhammad sallallahu salaam or the quran
2:35:55 or
2:35:56 islam in general it's um it ends up
2:35:57 being a double standard
2:35:59 uh they neglect um context and that the
2:36:01 the verse itself is very specific
2:36:03 to a particular i think i think it's i
2:36:05 think it's a fair question to be honest
2:36:07 and
2:36:07 it is it is there's a lot more to be
2:36:09 said about it a lot more
2:36:11 like back and forth to be had about it
2:36:12 but like it's a huge can of worms to
2:36:15 open
2:36:15 like i just want to add like at the end
2:36:19 for the end of the show i have not yet
2:36:21 come across a verse
2:36:23 that tells muslims to go kill people
2:36:26 for fun yeah you're not going to come
2:36:27 across that person
2:36:29 i i told you that again you're not going
2:36:32 yeah yeah let's believe
2:36:38 a broader discussion about this in a
2:36:40 future stream yeah definitely we can
2:36:42 even have a focus on that
2:36:43 you know um maybe the next one we can do
2:36:47 the moral streams or something
2:36:51 focus on that question itself like our
2:36:52 muslims kill
2:36:54 all the disbelievers and we can bring up
2:36:56 the the argument so why this is an
2:36:57 absurd claim
2:36:58 but um we'll leave that there so i just
2:37:00 want to thank everyone who's joined us
2:37:02 today
2:37:02 uh thank you for the guests that are
2:37:04 turned up on the show thank you for the
2:37:05 the co-hosts
2:37:06 and thank you for the viewers as well uh
2:37:08 if you can just make sure if you haven't
2:37:10 already
2:37:10 subscribe to the channel at what number
2:37:13 subscribers are we on now let's have a
2:37:14 look
2:37:15 because we were just under five hundred
2:37:16 so inshallah i'm hoping we've got
2:37:18 subhanallah we've got a lot more than
2:37:20 500 536.
2:37:22 so we've managed to gain maybe uh 50 or
2:37:24 so subscribers today alhamdulillah
2:37:27 uh so if you haven't subscribed make
2:37:28 sure you do now uh make sure to
2:37:30 share like comment as all of this does
2:37:33 help us with the algorithms
2:37:35 uh and it will push it the videos that
2:37:37 we make uh towards other accounts that
2:37:39 might be interested in similar subject
2:37:40 fields and things like that
2:37:41 um but other than that is it does anyone
2:37:44 make it wanna make any closing
2:37:46 statements or comments and and we'll end
2:37:48 it there you've got a minute
2:37:49 no more than that otherwise you get last
2:37:51 i need a muslim guest for my show
2:37:54Laughter 2:37:58 jake i don't know if you want to say
2:37:59 anything really quickly or i i wanted to
2:38:01 add just one or two points so
2:38:03 yeah not much other than um appreciate
2:38:06 everybody for watching
2:38:07 for watching and like brother youssef
2:38:09 said
2:38:10 like subscribe and share really helps
2:38:12 with the algorithms for youtube
2:38:15 as far as the question today that we
2:38:16 tried to answer does the trinity make
2:38:18 sense
2:38:19 um obviously the four of us well five of
2:38:22 us i don't want to leave out
2:38:23 the big beard that fell over there um
2:38:25 five of us
2:38:26 mr glorious bid yeah no the trinity
2:38:29 doesn't make sense uh
2:38:30 we had two christian guests come on and
2:38:32 um i think
2:38:34 uh you know they tried their best in
2:38:36 their own way but
2:38:37 ultimately uh we don't think that they
2:38:40 gave adequate answers
2:38:42 to you know trying to demonstrate that
2:38:44 the community does make sense
2:38:46 um but you know other than that maybe
2:38:49 we'll revisit the issue at another point
2:38:51 and have some more people on
2:38:53 but i think it was a beneficial
2:38:54 discussion
2:38:56 don't forget my argument wasn't refuted
2:39:01 by the way dude you need to stop having
2:39:02 your podcast at stupid o'clock in the
2:39:04 morning if you want us to bloody join up
2:39:06 over here oh
2:39:07 i'll just go ahead and move i'll move on
2:39:09 next door to you and then whatever
2:39:12 the uk and then we'll be fine and then
2:39:14 and then sharif won't keep telling me
2:39:16 that i'm avoiding him
2:39:17 for three in the morning it's not
2:39:19 reasonable you've not added me yeah
2:39:20 you've not added me
2:39:22 yet do you want to have any closing
2:39:25 statements
2:39:27 um i i just wanted to say uh like
2:39:30 generally again i mentioned this in the
2:39:32 beginning i want to mention it at the
2:39:33 end
2:39:34 that that uh that yeah that the whole
2:39:37 point of this
2:39:38 is to is to i think a lot of christians
2:39:40 do acknowledge that there is a logical
2:39:41 problem there is a discussion to be had
2:39:44 uh the fact that there is an apparent
2:39:46 problem doesn't mean that it's an actual
2:39:47 problem we obviously think that
2:39:49 that it's an actual problem and that's
2:39:50 what we're arguing for and the whole
2:39:52 idea is to have a healthy
2:39:55 discussion about that even if it is a
2:39:57 logical problem i think a lot of
2:39:59 christians say that you can have
2:40:01 independent reasons to believe in this
2:40:05 seemingly incoherent uh belief obviously
2:40:08 we're gonna think that
2:40:09 the the reason and the the logic that
2:40:12 both muslims and christians agree is god
2:40:15 given
2:40:15 should take precedence over these other
2:40:18 reasons which i think
2:40:19 christians are generally going to refer
2:40:20 to scriptural and historical
2:40:22 reasons for for their beliefs and the
2:40:25 fact that there is a discussion to be
2:40:27 had
2:40:28 among christians like there are
2:40:30 unitarian christians
2:40:31 who give scriptural evidence for their
2:40:33 unit for their unitarian belief
2:40:35 uh the fact that there is a discussion
2:40:37 to be had means that you can
2:40:39 avoid such huge ontological metaphysical
2:40:43 costs
2:40:45 in your faith and and it means that
2:40:48 maybe you should consider taking your
2:40:50 god-given reason
2:40:52 uh you should give it precedence over uh
2:40:55 over other forms of let's say
2:40:57 testimony that that that uh you know
2:41:00 wouldn't
2:41:00 wouldn't you know wait as much as reason
2:41:03 in this discussion so i think i'll leave
2:41:04 it at that
2:41:06 so just want to kind of finish here with
2:41:09 saying obviously
2:41:10 we would like to invite you all to islam
2:41:12 uh if you're not aware of it please do
2:41:13 look into it and you can obviously
2:41:15 message us
2:41:16 uh in the comments and things like that
2:41:18 and there's a few of us we've got like a
2:41:20 little team going here so
2:41:21 insha'allah one of us will pick up on it
2:41:23 and try to help you if you have any
2:41:24 questions
2:41:25 uh we also have an email address uh for
2:41:27 the
2:41:28 the uh the show itself which is contact
2:41:31 dot
2:41:31 uh t a podcast gmail.com
2:41:35 uh if you just wanna say it as one word
2:41:36 tap to podcast
2:41:38 uh gmail.com so do check that out and
2:41:40 also in the description
2:41:42 um we've recently set up an instagram
2:41:45 page and a facebook page uh so make sure
2:41:48 if you're on those
2:41:49 social medias to follow us on both of
2:41:51 them and we do have a twitter as well
2:41:54 the links all of this is in the
2:41:55 description the first part is everything
2:41:57 to do with the
2:41:58 uh thought adventure podcast social
2:42:00 media and then below that there is the
2:42:01 information for all of the hosts
2:42:03 uh so we've all got our own social media
2:42:06 accounts we've
2:42:06 finally convinced abdulrahman to get a
2:42:09 twitter account as well so that
2:42:10 we can at least put something in there
2:42:12 for him uh so do make sure to follow us
2:42:14 on
2:42:15 uh the social media as individuals as
2:42:16 well and to subscribe
2:42:18 to the muslim metaphysician as he has a
2:42:19 youtube channel i have one as well
2:42:21 uh the pondering soul uh very quickly i
2:42:24 think
2:42:25 uh sure brother sharif wanted to say
2:42:27 something i'm not sure if he still does
2:42:29 go sharif oh no no it's cool i think
2:42:32 we will probably have to end it anyway
2:42:35 we've got the limelight
2:42:36Laughter 2:42:39 no i just wanted to just answer this
2:42:40 particular issue about
2:42:42 people claiming that we're limiting god
2:42:44 when we say god can only do
2:42:46 logically possible things or that there
2:42:49 are certain questions which are
2:42:51 you know make a video make a video
2:42:55 yeah make a video an independent one and
2:42:57 we'll upload it to the channel
2:42:58 and then that way you don't have to feel
2:43:00 like you've got to rush through it
2:43:00 because it's a
2:43:02 uh a subject i think really needs to
2:43:04 know
2:43:05 i was just going to say look you know
2:43:06 somebody turning around and saying you
2:43:07 can't limit god well okay fine
2:43:10 can an unlimited god become limited
2:43:13 you know if you're going to start saying
2:43:15 well you know what everything's
2:43:17 possible with god then you're going to
2:43:19 fall into a contradiction and that's the
2:43:21 point i think goes back to what we
2:43:22 originally said
2:43:23 is that these sentences become
2:43:25 meaningless statements now
2:43:27 like talking about squared circles or
2:43:30 creating something impossible for god to
2:43:32 lift that type of thing because
2:43:34 if jesus is limited in his being then
2:43:37 you're saying at the same time funnily
2:43:39 enough you can't limit god
2:43:41 except when you limit him and it's like
2:43:43 yeah we're not saying anything i was
2:43:45 just going to say that and i was just
2:43:46 saying that
2:43:46 you know you know jesus for everybody uh
2:43:50 that have watched this uh and it was
2:43:52 interesting like i said the
2:43:53 the key thing that i think you get out
2:43:56 of
2:43:56 the discussion with christians is the
2:43:58 appeal to mystery
2:44:00 when they there's an issue about having
2:44:02 to try to reconcile
2:44:04 uh the logical problem or to try to
2:44:06 claim that
2:44:07 this is quote-unquote human logic that's
2:44:10 that is trying to understand comprehend
2:44:12 god we're not trying to comprehend god
2:44:14 what we're trying to do is comprehend
2:44:16 the idea whatever it is you're saying to
2:44:18 us
2:44:18 exactly yeah the proposition has been
2:44:20 pushed but i'll leave it there
2:44:22 because obviously i think we need to uh
2:44:23 end soon definitely so
2:44:26 again to everyone just one last repeat
2:44:28 check out the description for all of the
2:44:30 social medias follow us there
2:44:31 like share subscribe but other than that
2:44:33 may allah bless you all
2:44:35 assalamu alaikum warahmatullahi