From Necessary Being to God - Debunking Atheist Arguments | Thought Adventure Podcast #6 (2021-03-28) #

0:00:07 i
0:00:14 am
0:00:33 everybody welcome to episode i think six
0:00:36 we're on now alhamdulillah and today we
0:00:39 are joined by
0:00:40 the usual muslim metaphysician here
0:00:43 we have brothers here and brother abdul
0:00:46 rahman there on our way
0:00:47 i got all the pointing right first time
0:00:49 yeah
0:00:51 i like him everybody
0:00:53Music 0:00:54 do apologize slightly for the delay uh
0:00:57 so we've
0:00:58 uh sort of had a bit of a hiccup at the
0:01:00 beginning trying to get the
0:01:02 admins on uh they were logged on the
0:01:03 wrong account and uh
0:01:05 so yeah forgive us for that but so today
0:01:08 we're going to be
0:01:09 focusing on the the stage two elements
0:01:12 of the
0:01:13 the kalam argument so for those of you
0:01:15 who don't know we're gonna
0:01:16 basically give a quick recap of stage
0:01:19 one um so these are arguments in favor
0:01:22 of a
0:01:22 necessary being and there's many of them
0:01:25 and we're not going to go over all of
0:01:26 them because there's too many
0:01:28 but uh we'll focus on a couple and from
0:01:31 there
0:01:32 you basically get this idea of a
0:01:33 necessary being of a particular kind of
0:01:36 being which is unique
0:01:37 um but you don't necessarily from these
0:01:39 arguments get this idea
0:01:41 of a god and so stage two is to make the
0:01:44 inference from the necessary being
0:01:46 to a being that would be commonly
0:01:49 understood as a god
0:01:51 uh in the abrahamic sense for one
0:01:54 and uh so yeah and we're going to kind
0:01:56 of go over that
0:01:58 so does it any brothers want to kind of
0:02:00 um
0:02:01 step in maybe with a little bit of a an
0:02:03 intro um
0:02:04 any like adding on to what i've just
0:02:06 said or what do you think is
0:02:08 probably the best way to sort of segue
0:02:10 into this
0:02:12 yeah i think we should um you know
0:02:15 reiterate
0:02:17 how we got to this point from stage one
0:02:20 um so i'll i'll give my take on it so
0:02:23 yeah we had a we had a previous stream
0:02:25 where we tried to argue
0:02:27 uh for a necessary bean um so if
0:02:30 you guys aren't familiar with that you
0:02:32 know you should go back and watch that
0:02:34 but
0:02:35 we got from we were trying to argue that
0:02:38 a necessary being exists
0:02:40 from the contingency of the world uh by
0:02:43 the fact that we have
0:02:44 all these tinge uh contingent things in
0:02:46 reality there must be a sort of
0:02:48 necessary foundation
0:02:50 to explain all these contingent uh
0:02:53 entities
0:02:54 and so we we tried to arrive at that
0:02:57 conclusion but then
0:02:58 the question that we're dealing with
0:03:00 today as far as stage two argument is
0:03:03 what are the properties uh can we derive
0:03:05 any properties
0:03:07 from this necessary being what are the
0:03:09 sort of properties that it has what are
0:03:11 the sort of properties that it wouldn't
0:03:13 have
0:03:14 and by analyzing the properties
0:03:17 of this necessary being this is sort of
0:03:20 what's called stage two cosmological
0:03:22 arguments
0:03:23 where we can try to say a little bit
0:03:25 more about this necessary being
0:03:28 or cause and see whether or not it
0:03:31 matches up with
0:03:32 um you know typically the attributes of
0:03:35 god or what we would conceive of
0:03:37 as god or is it more something that's
0:03:40 i know abdul doesn't necessarily like
0:03:42 this word natural but
0:03:43 is it something that is purely natural
0:03:45 and can be explained by natural means
0:03:48 or is it something more akin to what
0:03:50 theists mean
0:03:51 by god which is what we think and what
0:03:53 we're going to be arguing for
0:03:55 uh today so i don't know if the brothers
0:03:58 have anything else they want to add
0:04:00 as far as how we're getting to the point
0:04:02 we are at now
0:04:04 yeah i was going to uh just quickly add
0:04:06 so
0:04:07 previously what we talked about is that
0:04:09 contingent beings
0:04:11 are things that exist but could exist in
0:04:13 another way
0:04:14 or they don't have to exist yeah so when
0:04:17 you come across something that's
0:04:18 contingent in essence what we're saying
0:04:20 is that that thing
0:04:22 requires an explanation as to why is
0:04:25 that
0:04:25 particular way and why exist so i think
0:04:28 i gave the example last time of a red
0:04:30 triangle
0:04:31 so if you've got a red triangle by the
0:04:33 fact that it has three sides is
0:04:35 necessary for the
0:04:36 for a triangle because triangles have
0:04:38 three sides but the fact that it's red
0:04:40 as opposed to blue or green or yellow or
0:04:43 any other color
0:04:44 means that this is a contingent or
0:04:47 possible
0:04:47 thing or possible being so we need an
0:04:50 explanation why is it red because the
0:04:52 redness of a triangle is not contained
0:04:54 in its own definition of being a
0:04:55 triangle
0:04:56 yeah so therefore that's why we call it
0:04:58 contingent and that's why we look for an
0:05:00 explanation and the explanation is
0:05:01 outside the existence of a triangle
0:05:03 so we look at other possible
0:05:05 explanations as to why
0:05:07 this triangle is red as opposed to
0:05:09 another color
0:05:10 now the next question then becomes well
0:05:12 okay the other things that we look at
0:05:14 are they either contingent beings
0:05:16 meaning that they require an explanation
0:05:18 outside of itself
0:05:20 or is it ends with a necessary being
0:05:23 something that is uh that has its own
0:05:26 explanation contained in and of itself
0:05:29 yeah uh has a saity has independency
0:05:32 has self-sufficiency so the argument
0:05:36 goes is that a contingent being
0:05:37 dependent upon another contingent being
0:05:39 cannot go on forever in an uh in an
0:05:43 infinite regress of causal relationships
0:05:45 or causal explanations
0:05:47 so there needs to be a necessary being
0:05:49 some starting point
0:05:50 something that's independent that
0:05:52 doesn't need an explanation outside of
0:05:54 itself
0:05:55 and therefore this is what we call a
0:05:56 necessary being so that's the basic
0:05:58 argument
0:05:59 uh how we came to the conclusion of the
0:06:01 necessary being
0:06:02 is because of how we understand what
0:06:04 contingency is it's because of the
0:06:06 impossibility of the necessary being
0:06:08 necessary any uh of
0:06:09 uh infinite regress to explain uh the
0:06:12 existence of necessary
0:06:14 air continued beings and therefore the
0:06:16 need for a necessary eternal
0:06:18 independent being now many atheists
0:06:21 or a number of atheists will accept that
0:06:24 position
0:06:25 yeah they don't find it too problematic
0:06:29 because they're arguing that this it
0:06:31 could be a naturalistic
0:06:33 um you know eternal thing
0:06:36 yeah it doesn't have to have a will it
0:06:38 doesn't have to have a mind doesn't have
0:06:40 to have consciousness it doesn't have to
0:06:41 be all knowing
0:06:42 what we would typically understand as a
0:06:45 theistic
0:06:46 view of god so we want to go as the
0:06:48 brothers already mentioned
0:06:49 how do we go from that discussion to a
0:06:53 necessary being that has a
0:06:55 intentionality as a will has a mind
0:06:57 to create and it's not just something
0:06:59 that's forced or
0:07:01 is a mechanical force within the
0:07:03 universe that creates automatically
0:07:04 without any choice
0:07:07 mashallah and brother abdullah do you
0:07:09 want to say anything before i
0:07:10 chime in yeah um i i want i wanted to
0:07:14 first
0:07:14 um i mean i take a few steps to talk
0:07:17 about
0:07:19 noise am i no no no
0:07:22 no we can hear him might be on your own
0:07:25 mike
0:07:25 sorry i'm sorry yeah that's fine
0:07:29 so so i just wanted to talk about a few
0:07:31 points like in
0:07:32 in the beginning about um a lot of
0:07:34 muslims have these concerns about like
0:07:37 these arguments and the complexity of
0:07:38 the arguments you know and
0:07:40 and why we need to engage in these
0:07:43 arguments in order to prove the
0:07:44 existence of god because a lot a lot of
0:07:46 this talk seems like it's just
0:07:48 way beyond the average person to
0:07:51 understand
0:07:52 uh unless they they study in depth stuff
0:07:54 like the metaphysics of causation
0:07:56 and you know uh principle sufficient
0:07:59 reasons and
0:08:00 and the back and forth between the
0:08:01 philosophers about these stuff
0:08:03 so um i think it's important at the
0:08:06 outset to point out
0:08:08 uh that you know a lot of these concepts
0:08:11 that we discuss
0:08:12 are are actually intuitively accessible
0:08:17 you don't need to formally express these
0:08:20 ideas about causality
0:08:22 and these uh concerns these cosmological
0:08:24 concerns we talk about
0:08:26 with regard to the origins of the
0:08:27 universe they don't have to be
0:08:29 formally accessible for them to be
0:08:32 intuitively accessible
0:08:34 and and i've noticed from my uh reading
0:08:37 on this that that
0:08:38 once you really get into the depth of
0:08:40 these discussions
0:08:41 and when you when you reach a conclusion
0:08:44 that's more towards the theistic side
0:08:46 and you have a very strong philosophical
0:08:49 rational basis for it
0:08:50 that really just does comport with that
0:08:53 very basic
0:08:54 intuition we have about how causality
0:08:56 works
0:08:57 uh agent causation intentionality and
0:08:59 all of that stuff
0:09:00 so uh because i think a lot of people do
0:09:02 have that concern that a lot of these
0:09:04 arguments are way you know just over my
0:09:06 head
0:09:07 and is it necessary to believe in god
0:09:09 that's one aspect so the second
0:09:11 part i i want to say with regard to the
0:09:13 same concern
0:09:14 is this epistemic
0:09:18 concern that we have that uh let's say
0:09:21 for example science when you talk about
0:09:23 cause
0:09:23 cause kalam cosmological argument for
0:09:25 example relates to a lot of scientific
0:09:27 theories about time and and the origin
0:09:30 of the universe
0:09:31 is there a state that science can take
0:09:34 us to where these philosophical and
0:09:36 existential questions
0:09:38 will be less relevant can we reach a
0:09:41 point
0:09:41 of observation where these intuitions
0:09:45 and these
0:09:46 you know lines of reasoning about
0:09:48 causality and the origin of the universe
0:09:50 will be any different and i think that
0:09:53 the answer to that is is a straight no
0:09:55 because we are limited by observation
0:09:58 and we do presuppose stuff before we do
0:10:01 these observations we presuppose certain
0:10:03 aspects of these cosmological arguments
0:10:05 before we make these observations
0:10:07 things like causality it can be argued
0:10:10 and some philosophers do argue that
0:10:12 causality is something that's more a
0:10:14 priori you don't go out there and
0:10:16 you know investigate and do empirical
0:10:18 research and then ah
0:10:19 causality exists it's something that's
0:10:22 presupposed in order for you
0:10:24 not just to be able to investigate the
0:10:26 external world but in order for you to
0:10:28 be able to
0:10:28 think in a cogent way in the first place
0:10:30 there must be some causal series that's
0:10:32 presupposed
0:10:33 so so and then there's cause uh properly
0:10:36 basic beliefs
0:10:37 that that planting us spoke about and
0:10:39 and uh brother jamie turner is very good
0:10:41 good with that
0:10:42 so this is just the this is just a
0:10:43 general intro i want to give about
0:10:45 people who are very concerned with
0:10:46 a lot of the complexities and nuances
0:10:49 and and the philosophical depth that
0:10:51 these arguments can go to
0:10:53 um i i think uh you guys touched on
0:10:57 how we briefly went through the state
0:10:59 stage one cosmological arguments
0:11:01 there are objections to it we have uh uh
0:11:04 we have causal arguments which is
0:11:06 cosmological argument that relies on the
0:11:08 finitude of causal chains
0:11:10 there's the contingency argument that
0:11:12 doesn't rely on that you can have an
0:11:13 infinite series of past events
0:11:15 and you can argue for a strong or weak
0:11:18 principle of sufficient reason
0:11:19 and come to the existence of a necessary
0:11:22 being alexander prus does this very well
0:11:24 and then the stage two cosmological
0:11:26 arguments is where you talk about
0:11:28 the nature of this being and you can
0:11:30 approach that from many routes one of
0:11:32 the best ways
0:11:33 that i like is when is is when you bring
0:11:36 the discussion back to
0:11:37 the philosophy of mind and the role of
0:11:40 will and angel agent causation
0:11:43 and you talk about these many different
0:11:47 theories of causation in the metaphysics
0:11:49 metaphysicality
0:11:50 you can come to the conclusion that a a
0:11:53 a non-temporal eternal
0:11:56 necessary foundation of reality bringing
0:11:58 about a temporal cause
0:12:01 is best explained by an act of will
0:12:03 there are
0:12:04 teleological concerns fine-tuning and
0:12:06 are
0:12:07 design arguments where you can make a
0:12:09 cumulative case
0:12:10 and say that there is some form of
0:12:12 intelligence and there are other aspects
0:12:14 that i think will go through
0:12:15 um throughout this dream insha'allah
0:12:17 insha allah
0:12:19 for your contributions so i just want to
0:12:21 touch on a couple of things you
0:12:22 mentioned there so firstly um
0:12:24 this idea that everything needs to be
0:12:27 rationally explained or understood in
0:12:29 order to be
0:12:30 accepted so there's a really good
0:12:32 example of this with the problems of the
0:12:33 external world
0:12:35 many people don't have to go through
0:12:38 this
0:12:38 process of going through the philosophy
0:12:41 of
0:12:42 justifying the existence of the external
0:12:43 world we we deal with it it's there we
0:12:46 have this um the present and immediate
0:12:48 experience of it
0:12:49 and we can get engaged with it and i
0:12:52 think
0:12:53 many people would agree and maybe the
0:12:55 odd one out
0:12:56 may not but many people would agree that
0:12:58 you don't need
0:12:59 a philosophical rational justification
0:13:02 in order to come to the conclusion that
0:13:04 there is an external world
0:13:05 there are these intuitions that you have
0:13:08 um based
0:13:09 like in experience itself and this is
0:13:12 enough for people to just accept it and
0:13:13 so we that kind of goes into this idea
0:13:15 of
0:13:16 basic beliefs um which is a conversation
0:13:18 obviously we can have with that
0:13:20 but that doesn't mean simply because
0:13:22 that is the case that there isn't
0:13:24 philosophical argument for it and if you
0:13:26 do want to engage in this philosophical
0:13:28 argument
0:13:28 you you need to exercise patience put in
0:13:30 the effort and go through the work
0:13:32 now there are a lot of abstract concepts
0:13:34 in the process of going through all of
0:13:36 this
0:13:36 and you know that this can be difficult
0:13:39 for the average person or the layman to
0:13:41 to grapple with
0:13:42 in the beginning and we all go through
0:13:43 this process when we first start
0:13:45 engaging with this type of philosophy it
0:13:48 does get abstract
0:13:49 it doesn't mean that it's um illogical
0:13:52 or that there isn't a discussion to be
0:13:54 had
0:13:54 you know this discussion is being had
0:13:56 especially in academia
0:13:57 and the even people on opposing sides
0:14:00 seem to be able to have
0:14:01 a cogent conversation with one another
0:14:03 they have disagreements and things like
0:14:04 that but
0:14:05 for the most part uh you know that there
0:14:07 is a conversation it's not just people
0:14:09 talking over one another
0:14:10 and it goes into that so that's um
0:14:13 touching on that
0:14:14 now someone mentioned i think it was
0:14:16 justin
0:14:17 about the idea of why can't it be the
0:14:19 infinite regress and abdul rahman
0:14:21 also kind of touched on this as well but
0:14:23 uh so arguments uh from things like
0:14:25 dependency
0:14:26 um deal with the the idea of set off
0:14:28 dependent things that set can be any
0:14:30 number so it could be a finite number it
0:14:32 could be
0:14:32 a never-ending regress of uh dependent
0:14:36 things if you want it to be
0:14:38 but it's the whole point of it is that
0:14:40 whatever this set
0:14:41 is you say there is a set of dependent
0:14:44 things
0:14:44 and the whole is itself dependent
0:14:48 and therefore relies on something that
0:14:50 isn't in the set
0:14:51 and so therefore can't be dependent and
0:14:54 if it was dependent it'd be in the set
0:14:56 so
0:14:56 whatever this set is it has to rely on
0:14:58 something outside of it
0:14:59 which has a unique kind of existence
0:15:02 that which is of independence
0:15:04 and um so you know with this the ideas
0:15:06 of internet infinite regress
0:15:08 are sort of overcome you don't even have
0:15:10 to discuss them because they can just be
0:15:11 contained
0:15:12 within the idea of a set like whatever
0:15:13 number you want to apply to that
0:15:15 um is fine it doesn't affect the
0:15:17 argument in any way
0:15:18 um so that's another thing that
0:15:20 obviously is important to go on
0:15:22 very briefly over that um and i think
0:15:24 we're probably at a good point now where
0:15:25 we can start moving on
0:15:27 to discussing the stage two unless
0:15:29 there's anything else any of you wanted
0:15:31 to add on before we did that
0:15:33 yeah just before we go to the stage two
0:15:35 i know we put it on the bottom of the
0:15:37 screen but i just want to make it a
0:15:39 a formal announcement we we are on um
0:15:43 several different uh locations now other
0:15:46 than youtube
0:15:47 um so what
0:15:51 do you guys remember what all of them
0:15:52 are because i can't remember it's pretty
0:15:54 much all the major
0:15:55 street um podcast platforms so you
0:15:57 probably find us on places like apple
0:15:59 um spotify google
0:16:02 podcasts i think is another one um i
0:16:05 think we'll get one of the admins
0:16:06 to put them up in a comment on the
0:16:08 screen while we're discussing things
0:16:10 but you know just if you're using any
0:16:12 particular
0:16:13 um streaming or podcast service
0:16:17 just searches on there and if you're
0:16:19 already using that inshallah we should
0:16:20 be on there if it if we aren't
0:16:22 on a particular service that you use
0:16:24 just drop us a comment in this video
0:16:27 let us know what it is and we'll see if
0:16:28 we can also um make it so that we can
0:16:30 add our services on there as well
0:16:32 and we should find us anywhere so if you
0:16:34 if you're the kind of person that likes
0:16:35 listening to podcasts while you're
0:16:36 driving and things like that
0:16:38 um and you're not really using youtube
0:16:39 when you're out and about
0:16:41 and in charlotte this should be um
0:16:43 available to you
0:16:44 and like if it isn't then let us know um
0:16:47 and other than that make sure to follow
0:16:49 us on all the um
0:16:51 major social media platforms so we're on
0:16:53 twitter
0:16:54 uh with this tag uh at t a
0:16:58 uh t underscore a underscore podcast uh
0:17:01 so do give us a follow on there if you
0:17:02 haven't already we're also on facebook
0:17:04 if you just search
0:17:05 thought adventure podcast we should come
0:17:07 up and the same for instagram as well
0:17:09 um and other than that i think we've
0:17:12 pretty much covered all of the
0:17:14 the social media aspects for the thought
0:17:16 adventure podcast
0:17:18 um so anything else or should we move on
0:17:20 to the
0:17:21 no that's it i just wanted to reiterate
0:17:23 that we are available now
0:17:25 on um spotify and apple which i guess
0:17:28 are the other
0:17:29 big um big apps and sites to find us at
0:17:33 so
0:17:33 if you guys aren't you know on youtube
0:17:35 as much you can definitely check us out
0:17:37 there
0:17:38 insha'allah so moving on now to
0:17:41 the stage two arguments who would like
0:17:44 to begin there with
0:17:46 uh the kind of transition to that
0:17:49 any brothers want to jump in so if you i
0:17:52 just
0:17:52 maybe introduce it i think there's four
0:17:55 key
0:17:56 uh number of different arguments but i
0:17:58 sort of used four key general arguments
0:18:01 the first argument uh and i just want to
0:18:03 briefly go over and maybe the brothers
0:18:05 can add more detail but the first one
0:18:07 is if we accept that contingent things
0:18:10 require a necessary being then we're
0:18:11 also accepting that contingent beings
0:18:14 ultimately have a beginning in time
0:18:16 being beginning in creation
0:18:18 yeah so they didn't exist eternally
0:18:20 there was a beginning
0:18:22 but you'd have an eternal necessary
0:18:25 being
0:18:26 but which is the cause so you have an
0:18:28 eternal cause
0:18:30 but the effect which is the creation or
0:18:32 the cause of contingent beings
0:18:34 are temporal so if the eternal cause did
0:18:38 not choose to create
0:18:40 then the eternal cause would always
0:18:43 create which means that the effect would
0:18:45 always be eternal
0:18:47 the fact that the effect is not eternal
0:18:49 but the cause is eternal
0:18:51 indicates a will a decision to make the
0:18:55 choice
0:18:56 to want to er you know effect
0:18:59 yeah or cause the contingent beings to
0:19:01 exist that's first argument second
0:19:03 argument
0:19:04 is that contingent beings are those
0:19:06 things which could have multiple
0:19:08 different
0:19:08 attributes the fact that water could
0:19:11 boil
0:19:12 at 110 or 120 or 90 degrees celsius
0:19:16 are all possibilities for the water room
0:19:18 conditions assuming
0:19:20 we're on earth and you know one
0:19:22 atmosphere etc
0:19:24 it could have a number of different
0:19:25 attributes there's nothing necessary in
0:19:28 what water is and contingent beings are
0:19:31 to explain why it
0:19:32 has those particular attributes yeah
0:19:36 even if you want to talk about hydrogen
0:19:37 bonding you can talk about
0:19:39 why did you have a bonding and you keep
0:19:41 regressing back you'll find that there's
0:19:43 a necessary foundation that has to
0:19:44 actualize
0:19:46 all of these potential attributes
0:19:49 the fact that you've got a number of
0:19:51 different choices
0:19:53 and the necessary being chooses or has
0:19:55 to determine
0:19:56 one choice over another indicates
0:20:00 another or is another indication for
0:20:02 will
0:20:03 the third argument would be an argument
0:20:05 from consciousness
0:20:07 because uh in the last episode that we
0:20:09 had
0:20:10 we demonstrated that consciousness
0:20:12 itself cannot arise from
0:20:14 non-consciousness
0:20:15 there needs to be something that always
0:20:17 exists as conscious in order to bring
0:20:19 consciousness
0:20:20 in contingent beings in essence that's
0:20:23 the conclusion
0:20:24 if you can't ground consciousness or
0:20:25 materialism then you need something
0:20:27 that's conscious
0:20:29 in essence consciousness needs to be
0:20:31 caused by something
0:20:32 this indicates that if there is a
0:20:34 necessary being that necessary
0:20:35 foundation
0:20:36 must also be conscious and the fourth
0:20:38 one uh like i'm really going over these
0:20:40 really quickly
0:20:41 the fourth one would be an argument of
0:20:43 uh
0:20:44 arbitrary limits uh which i think uh
0:20:47 other brothers will explain further but
0:20:50 simply saying that
0:20:52 a necessary being which is unlimited
0:20:54 independent
0:20:55 eternal has a particular limit that it
0:20:58 doesn't necessarily not
0:21:00 have to have meaning if you've got
0:21:02 something that has a limit but it's
0:21:04 the reason why it has that particular
0:21:06 limitation
0:21:07 is not something that's explained by its
0:21:09 own existence
0:21:10 then you need to explain it by some
0:21:12 other recourse to another existence
0:21:15 because we're talking about an
0:21:16 independent eternal necessary being
0:21:19 then this independent eternal necessary
0:21:22 being
0:21:22 cannot have arbitrary or contingent
0:21:25 limits
0:21:26 like not being conscious because if it's
0:21:28 not conscious you're going to ask the
0:21:29 question
0:21:30 or why is it not conscious you know
0:21:32 what's caused it not to be not conscious
0:21:34 if you know what i mean so if you're
0:21:36 talking about an unlimited creator to
0:21:38 create an arbitrary limit of not being
0:21:40 conscious
0:21:41 would require an explanation yeah so
0:21:43 that's just really covering it
0:21:44 really briefly as possible as an
0:21:46 overview
0:21:50 mashallah and uh any of the other two
0:21:53 brothers want to jump in there
0:21:55 yeah um so um so so
0:21:58 uh the the argument from free will i
0:22:01 think
0:22:01 when we take the discussion back to uh
0:22:04 to the philosophy of mind and
0:22:05 consciousness i think it's it's it's
0:22:07 hugely relevant
0:22:08 uh if if we've if we've concluded the
0:22:11 existence of
0:22:12 a first cause or a necessary being that
0:22:15 does not depend on anything
0:22:16 else then by logical entailment this
0:22:20 necessary uh being or this first cause
0:22:23 is able to uh to causelessly cause
0:22:27 things that means it is able to cause
0:22:29 things
0:22:29 without an external force acting upon it
0:22:33 and and when when we take this back to
0:22:35 the philosophy of mind and the metaphase
0:22:37 of causation we speak about agent
0:22:39 causation
0:22:40 we can we can relate to this idea of
0:22:43 causelessly causing when we talk about
0:22:45 free will
0:22:46 and one way to look at it is is when you
0:22:49 sort of
0:22:50 uh try to deconstruct
0:22:53 how we really know that other agents
0:22:55 that we interact with
0:22:56 have free will or more broadly have
0:22:59 minds of their own at all and fault in
0:23:01 philosophy it's called the problem of
0:23:03 other minds
0:23:04 because i can interact with jake but
0:23:07 and i can see his his his you know his
0:23:10 motion and and you know the physical
0:23:12 stimuli that surrounds him
0:23:13 but i don't have any direct access to
0:23:15 his mind
0:23:16 and there is nothing i thought you're
0:23:18 gonna say my beautiful face but that's
0:23:20 okay
0:23:21 not two nothing that is directly
0:23:24 observable
0:23:25 about jake having a mind or jake having
0:23:29 a will of his own to initiate action
0:23:32 and there is nothing about the physical
0:23:34 features that i see about jake that
0:23:36 tells me that he necessarily
0:23:38 has a mind i could be looking at
0:23:40 somebody that
0:23:41 is deformed and i could still
0:23:46 think that or infer that they have mind
0:23:48 i'd be looking at a a creature that is
0:23:50 not human
0:23:51 and still from their behavior infer that
0:23:53 they have minds how do we do this
0:23:55 i think part of how we do it and the
0:23:56 most essential point is that there is
0:23:58 something
0:23:59 non-deterministic about the behavior of
0:24:02 a creature
0:24:03 that has a mind meaning that when you
0:24:05 have a mind it doesn't seem
0:24:07 that you're simply reacting to physical
0:24:10 stimuli it doesn't seem that
0:24:11 you know the wind is blowing me around
0:24:14 like it would blow around a rock
0:24:16 for example it doesn't seem that i'm
0:24:18 merely reacting to my physical stimuli
0:24:21 it seems that i'm behaving in a way
0:24:24 that's not
0:24:24 directly determined by my physical
0:24:27 stimuli
0:24:28 now i don't know if justin's watching
0:24:30 but uh
0:24:31 you know we don't have to take this to
0:24:33 whether we actually have free will or
0:24:34 not but we we
0:24:36 all all we're trying to say is that what
0:24:38 it seems
0:24:39 to have free will is that we are
0:24:41 behaving in a non-deterministic manner
0:24:43 that is not entirely determined by our
0:24:46 physical stimuli
0:24:48 even if it might be the case that
0:24:51 this is an illusion but that's how we
0:24:54 infer
0:24:54 the existence of a will when it comes to
0:24:57 other creatures
0:24:58 now when you take this back to to to the
0:25:01 first cause or the necessary being
0:25:03 it's really more uh um
0:25:06 worth attributing a a will
0:25:10 or a a a free will or a mind to this
0:25:14 necessary cause than it would be to any
0:25:16 being at all
0:25:17 because by definition or by logical
0:25:20 entailment we
0:25:21 know that this being must be acting
0:25:25 non-deterministically in the sense
0:25:26 that it does not rely on external
0:25:29 factors to influence it
0:25:30 so even if it's an illusion in our case
0:25:32 and we don't have free will
0:25:34 we know for a fact that this necessary
0:25:37 being or this first
0:25:38 cause is in fact causelessly causing
0:25:42 things to occur in a way that is
0:25:45 just more uh freewill like
0:25:48 than anything else in our experience so
0:25:51 if we're justified
0:25:52 in positing a will to anything at all i
0:25:55 would say that
0:25:56 it would be it would be most justified
0:25:59 to posit a will for this
0:26:00 independent causelessly causing being
0:26:04 uh the the there's another aspect uh
0:26:07 about their epistemic concerns that that
0:26:10 uh
0:26:11 robert coons raises about what it's like
0:26:14 to give an ultimate explanation or or
0:26:17 to to you know conceptualize this
0:26:20 necessary foundation of reality
0:26:22 and how that influences our you know
0:26:25 epistemic approach to these things so
0:26:28 when we say that every contingent thing
0:26:30 has a cause
0:26:31 that seems to be something that whether
0:26:33 that's determined by experience or
0:26:35 whether that's just an
0:26:36 a priori fact that you or principle that
0:26:40 you live by
0:26:41 it is quite clear that in our day-to-day
0:26:44 lives as well as in our
0:26:46 scientific inspection of the world we
0:26:50 always
0:26:50 assume that there is a cause for any
0:26:53 contingent fact
0:26:54 and scientists do this all the time it's
0:26:56 not like a scientist
0:26:58 will see some will make some observation
0:27:01 with an apparently unexplained
0:27:03 uh property and say that it just is no
0:27:06 what they do is they normally start with
0:27:09 the assumption that there is an
0:27:10 explanation
0:27:11 and they keep move tracking back until
0:27:14 they
0:27:14 they get the most plausible explanation
0:27:17 possible now the question is
0:27:19 what is this epistemic limitation of
0:27:21 science at what point
0:27:23 will science stop and say okay there's
0:27:25 no explanation beyond this point
0:27:27 because remember we're limited by our
0:27:29 observation so there is really nothing
0:27:31 you can observe about the world
0:27:33 that would justify you in saying that
0:27:37 and saying that there is no cause beyond
0:27:39 this because from
0:27:40 your very starting point you've assumed
0:27:42 that everything has a cause in the first
0:27:44 place
0:27:45 and and even things that don't seem to
0:27:47 have causes are assumed to have causes
0:27:49 and we go on and investigate them
0:27:51 so from there this takes us back to the
0:27:53 idea of an infinite regress we already
0:27:55 agreed
0:27:56 or at least these agreed with the stage
0:27:58 one cosmological argument that there
0:27:59 isn't an infinite regress so there is
0:28:01 this
0:28:02 stopping point there is going to be an
0:28:04 explanatory stopping point on any
0:28:06 worldview whether you're an atheist or a
0:28:08 theist
0:28:09 now the question is what is it that
0:28:12 differentiates this
0:28:13 necessary being from these contingent
0:28:15 facts if the necessary being
0:28:17 was uh or the necessary thing because
0:28:20 some people think that by being we mean
0:28:22 something conscious but in philosophy it
0:28:23 just means an existent right
0:28:25 so this necessary being if it is merely
0:28:27 a contingent
0:28:28 natural fact right or that you're just
0:28:31 going to slap the label natural on it so
0:28:33 if you say it's some kind of quantum
0:28:35 form or whatever
0:28:36 and that it is necessary the problem
0:28:39 with that is that there is nothing
0:28:41 that ontologically distinguishes this
0:28:44 necessary fact or this necessary entity
0:28:47 with everything else that's contingent
0:28:48 which you assume has a cause
0:28:50 so it seems like it would be a case of
0:28:52 special pleading to say that there is
0:28:54 this other necessary thing
0:28:56 there's nothing that i can i can
0:28:58 distinguish it
0:28:59 there's nothing that i can say
0:29:00 distinguishes it from the natural world
0:29:03 in a true ontological sense but
0:29:06 uh it it it doesn't have a cause that
0:29:08 seems like special pleading and i think
0:29:10 uh grandmappy does this when he says
0:29:13 that the initial item
0:29:15 is just a natural fact that doesn't have
0:29:17 a cause and
0:29:18 it doesn't have a cause simply by virtue
0:29:20 of its necessity
0:29:21 and i think robert kuhn raises a very
0:29:23 interesting concern with him
0:29:24 when he says that well if that's the
0:29:26 case and any contingent fact
0:29:27 can be the necessary stopping point
0:29:29 we're looking for then why don't you
0:29:31 just stop at your experience
0:29:33 because you can't prove that you existed
0:29:34 five minutes ago you can't prove your
0:29:36 memory you can't
0:29:37 you just you just have a current state
0:29:39 of mind
0:29:40 that you really have no means to
0:29:43 investigate
0:29:44 whether how you arrived at this state of
0:29:45 mind so so
0:29:47 robert coons raises the question and it
0:29:49 might seem like a trivial one because we
0:29:50 know that
0:29:51 we our memories let's say we know that
0:29:53 they're real but given this
0:29:55 epistemic approach to you know the the
0:29:58 philosophy
0:29:59 and metaphysics of modality if you're
0:30:01 gonna say that something
0:30:02 apparently contingent or natural can be
0:30:04 necessary then what's stopping you from
0:30:06 saying that your very
0:30:08 own experience your first person
0:30:09 subjective experience
0:30:11 is this necessary stopping point and
0:30:13 you're the necessary being
0:30:14 now of course it seems silly but then
0:30:16 the silliness of a question is just a
0:30:18 consequence of the silliness of the
0:30:20 epistemology
0:30:22 where you special plead and say that
0:30:24 something contingent
0:30:25 can be necessary and and from that we go
0:30:28 back to what brother sharif was saying
0:30:30 about
0:30:31 arbitrariness so there is something
0:30:33 about ultimate explanations that both
0:30:35 philosophers and
0:30:36 scientists acknowledge that you know you
0:30:39 just don't want it to be arbitrary an
0:30:41 ultimate explanation doesn't seem like
0:30:43 it's the kind of thing that can be
0:30:45 arbitrary
0:30:45 like like if i tell you that the the
0:30:48 necessary foundation of reality is the
0:30:50 number four for example
0:30:52 or even if it's something with you know
0:30:55 a
0:30:56 a certain power that's limited at the
0:30:58 level four
0:30:59 well that very property is seems to be a
0:31:02 contingent fact
0:31:03 that a scientist or a philosopher would
0:31:06 like an explanation for because it's a
0:31:07 certain property
0:31:08 property it's a certain limitation that
0:31:10 calls for an explanation that's what a
0:31:12 contingent fact is
0:31:13 so this non-arbitrariness that we're
0:31:15 looking for
0:31:16 is something that that can serve as a
0:31:19 very good candidate for this necessary
0:31:21 being
0:31:22 and and rasmussen speaks about this
0:31:25 supreme nature of this non-arbitrary
0:31:27 necessary being and he says that
0:31:29 while we have causal powers that
0:31:32 that that that are you know a result of
0:31:35 our intentionality and our will
0:31:37 is this necessary foundation that has
0:31:40 actually that actually has person making
0:31:42 properties are we going to limit it from
0:31:45 that kind of causal power
0:31:47 if we're going to assume of course that
0:31:49 this agent causation is a thing which
0:31:51 obviously would have to be argued for
0:31:53 but at least from our first person
0:31:54 perspective agent causation is a
0:31:56 is a thing and free will does seem to be
0:31:59 a thing
0:32:00 so why are you placed why would you
0:32:01 place this arbitrary limitation
0:32:04 on this you know necessary foundation
0:32:06 when you don't really need to and in
0:32:08 fact
0:32:08 actually philosophers these days i know
0:32:10 i'm going on a bit i'm going to stop
0:32:11 right now
0:32:12 but atheist philosophers these days they
0:32:14 don't mind
0:32:15 positing things like pan psychism by
0:32:17 saying you know what to solve this hard
0:32:19 problem of consciousness
0:32:20 let's say that everything has some you
0:32:23 know fundamental level of
0:32:24 proto-consciousness
0:32:26 they don't mind doing that and and
0:32:29 they don't mind also saying that there's
0:32:30 a necessary natural thing
0:32:32 but what
0:32:36 you're doing here is you're basically
0:32:37 positing that if there's a cause for the
0:32:39 universe it has some type of
0:32:40 consciousness
0:32:41 so you're getting awfully close to to to
0:32:43 the idea of god in your kind of
0:32:45 blurring blinds between theism and
0:32:47 atheism so if you don't mind
0:32:49 you know making these kinds of maneuvers
0:32:51 in order to get out of problems like the
0:32:53 heart problem of consciousness
0:32:54 then i think it's very reasonable for us
0:32:57 to say that there is there is very good
0:32:59 rational basis for positing
0:33:01 the idea that the first cause has free
0:33:03 will and it has this
0:33:05 agent causal power we're talking about
0:33:06 there are other teleological aspects but
0:33:08 i think we can leave that for later
0:33:10 yeah definitely and i just want to touch
0:33:11 on the the causality thing that you were
0:33:13 mentioning so there are
0:33:15 arguments for a priori um understanding
0:33:18 of
0:33:18 causality that we just know prior to
0:33:21 experience that causality is is an
0:33:22 existent thing um
0:33:24 but i would also argue say if you're
0:33:26 we're discussing this with an atheist
0:33:28 and they're for the sake of being able
0:33:30 to deny a particular premise out of the
0:33:32 kalam
0:33:33 they're denying um the you know the
0:33:36 causality is a thing like
0:33:37 you could make an argument um a
0:33:39 posteriori and and you can even make an
0:33:41 argument that
0:33:42 um causality is is one of
0:33:46 the most empirically verified things
0:33:49 we've got in terms of like the
0:33:51 scientific community
0:33:52 there has not been any experience
0:33:55 at all since in recorded history of um
0:33:59 you know within the scientific community
0:34:01 so of something
0:34:02 of an effect occurring without a cause
0:34:05 we we've got
0:34:06 like countless data that causes a led
0:34:10 by effects and so if you want to deny
0:34:12 this you're
0:34:14 risking putting yourself towards the
0:34:16 position of a moral
0:34:18 nihilist basically you're not a moral
0:34:20 knight it's an epistemic
0:34:21 nihilist in the fact that you're saying
0:34:22 or uh knowledge is going to be something
0:34:25 incredibly difficult to gain at all um
0:34:27 you know the scientific community
0:34:28 completely presupposes these like these
0:34:30 ideas of cause and effect
0:34:32 and you know and it and it's necessary
0:34:34 in order for the scientific community to
0:34:36 be able to progress
0:34:37 and to continue on the mission that it's
0:34:39 on you know
0:34:40 there's no what point is that looking at
0:34:43 the world
0:34:44 trying to um you know discover things in
0:34:47 it
0:34:47 if you can't even be sure that causes
0:34:50 have
0:34:51 effects or that effects have causes it
0:34:54 is
0:34:55 literally one of the most um widely
0:34:58 documented things that we have within
0:35:00 the scientific community
0:35:02 and if you want to go down that route of
0:35:03 saying well i think someone made a
0:35:05 comment here like
0:35:06 you know how do you uh where is it
0:35:10 somewhere here there's too many comments
0:35:12 uh so i won't
0:35:14 try to find it but yeah so how you know
0:35:16 how do you what do you do when someone
0:35:18 denies
0:35:18 cause and effect is just point to this
0:35:20 just point to the scientific communities
0:35:22 point
0:35:22 to like any everything else like if you
0:35:25 want to say
0:35:26 um the the we we have ample evidence to
0:35:29 suggest that the earth
0:35:30 is round and i would agree with that i
0:35:33 would say we've got more evidence for
0:35:34 cause and effect
0:35:35 i would say we've got more evidence for
0:35:36 that than we have the majority if not
0:35:39 all
0:35:40 of the the general claims that the the
0:35:42 scientific community are putting forward
0:35:44 uh and so to deny that is to completely
0:35:47 kick your legs from under your feet
0:35:49 and especially if you're an atheist
0:35:51 rationality rules
0:35:52 we need empirical evidence for things
0:35:54 science is the best thing we've got
0:35:56 like you're you're throwing that out of
0:35:58 the window if you're gonna start
0:35:59 challenging ideas of cause and effect
0:36:01 so that's an incredibly important thing
0:36:03 to take note of
0:36:04 um and if you want to continue this
0:36:06 conversation as
0:36:08 say an atheist um who holds the
0:36:10 scientific um
0:36:12 method to you know with a very high
0:36:14 regard
0:36:15 you can't just go ahead and throw
0:36:17 causality out of the window because you
0:36:20 you're pretty much kicking your own butt
0:36:21 there by doing so and even if you say
0:36:24 because because uh i i think it was
0:36:26 russell who said that causality is just
0:36:28 this heuristic tool that we use
0:36:31 in the world and that it doesn't
0:36:32 necessarily have to be descriptive of
0:36:33 the world
0:36:34 i mean i mean even if you say that you
0:36:37 have some grounds if you say if it's a
0:36:38 heuristic tool then you have some
0:36:39 grounds to at least
0:36:40 from an epistemic basis assume that
0:36:43 every contingent thing has a cause
0:36:45 even if you're not definitely making the
0:36:47 statement that it does
0:36:48 although i think you need to make that
0:36:49 statement because it has to be
0:36:50 descriptive because if it isn't
0:36:52 then again the problem of skepticism a
0:36:54 radical unhealthy kind of skepticism
0:36:55 where
0:36:56 well how do you know anything has a
0:36:57 cause just if it's if if if you could
0:36:59 stop somewhere and say that there
0:37:01 is a contingent fact that doesn't have a
0:37:03 cause again you could just talk about
0:37:04 your own experience
0:37:05 you could stop at arbitrary arbitrary
0:37:10 line that you can draw in the middle of
0:37:12 your investigation of the universe and
0:37:13 just say okay it all stops here why not
0:37:15 there
0:37:16 so yeah so whether it's a heuristic or
0:37:18 descriptive i think
0:37:20 it is either way it's important to say
0:37:23 that about these questions about the
0:37:24 origins of the universe
0:37:26 it would be special pleading if you were
0:37:28 to say that
0:37:29 the universe having a call or the
0:37:31 contingent world or the cosmos having a
0:37:33 cause is something we don't know
0:37:34 because you don't really know what about
0:37:36 anything else if if you're going to go
0:37:38 down that route
0:37:38 yeah definitely and brother jake uh
0:37:41 we've not heard from you in a little bit
0:37:42 so do you want to jump in there
0:37:44 um with anything i kind of add or cover
0:37:46 the the bases we've not touched on so
0:37:48 far
0:37:49 yeah i mean the brothers pretty much
0:37:50 covered everything they stole my thunder
0:37:52 but
0:37:53 i just want to reiterate one point
0:37:56 um and for me a key issue is the idea
0:38:01 of investigating what the properties of
0:38:03 the cause are so
0:38:05 if we look at the cause and based on
0:38:07 things like the kalam cosmological
0:38:08 argument
0:38:09 we uh affirm or try to demonstrate that
0:38:12 the universe had a beginning
0:38:14 the question is how do you get a
0:38:18 in in order to stop the infinite regress
0:38:22 the argument is that whatever the cause
0:38:23 is it's going to go back and it's going
0:38:25 to be an eternal call
0:38:27 cause of some sort and so the question
0:38:29 is if the cause of the universe is
0:38:31 eternal
0:38:33 in all the physical reality then how do
0:38:35 you explain
0:38:36 a temporal effect from an eternal cause
0:38:39 so the idea is for example um
0:38:43 take the example of water if uh um
0:38:46 water freezing if it freeze is at zero
0:38:49 degrees celsius
0:38:50 uh under normal conditions of course if
0:38:52 it
0:38:53 freezes at zero degrees celsius and
0:38:56 that those conditions are met there's
0:38:59 necessary
0:39:00 and sufficient to produce the effect
0:39:02 then the whole quest
0:39:03 question is why would the effect be
0:39:06 temporal
0:39:06 and the cause be eternal it would make
0:39:08 sense if it's merely just
0:39:10 mechanistic in the way that we
0:39:12 understand from science today
0:39:14 in the idea that i'm explaining about
0:39:16 the water freezing
0:39:18 at 0 degrees celsius well then
0:39:21 we would expect that the effect would
0:39:23 also be eternal alongside the cause
0:39:26 and if that's not the experience that we
0:39:28 have uh
0:39:29 our best science and the phys
0:39:31 philosophical arguments that we gave
0:39:33 uh point to the idea of the universe
0:39:35 having a beginning
0:39:37 and it is produced from an eternal cause
0:39:39 now
0:39:40 i don't see any way out of this problem
0:39:43 of getting a temporal effect
0:39:45 from an eternal cause without positing a
0:39:48 will to the cause of that temporal
0:39:51 effect
0:39:52 in the same way that we have experiences
0:39:54 for example i'm talking right
0:39:56 now i can will to stand up freely at any
0:39:59 moment
0:40:00 and this can explain how i my will
0:40:05 is sufficient to produce the effect and
0:40:08 yet it doesn't produce the effect
0:40:10 until i will myself to stand up the same
0:40:13 thing like
0:40:14 how we understand god creating the
0:40:16 universe he is sufficient eternally
0:40:19 to cause the universe to exist but it's
0:40:22 by his will when he chooses to do so and
0:40:24 brings it about
0:40:25 that it is brought about i don't
0:40:27 understand any way how to explain this
0:40:30 or get out of this problem
0:40:31 from a naturalistic paradigm of
0:40:33 explaining
0:40:34 how you get this temporal effect from an
0:40:37 eternal cause
0:40:39 if the cause is sufficient to produce
0:40:41 the effect
0:40:42 if the cause is not sufficient to
0:40:44 produce the effect
0:40:45 then how is that the necessary being or
0:40:48 the necessary
0:40:49 cause of creation then we have to go
0:40:52 back a
0:40:53 step even further and then reanalyze
0:40:57 what that cause is
0:40:58 so it just pushes it a step back further
0:41:00 you have to get in my view
0:41:02 to a stopping point in which the cause
0:41:05 is changeless in that initial state that
0:41:07 it is necessary to produce that effect
0:41:10 and yet it doesn't do so by our
0:41:13 standards of evidence that we have now
0:41:15 and so i guess what i'm saying here is
0:41:18 how i've
0:41:19 analyzed this in one way because the
0:41:20 other brothers mentioned
0:41:22 a few other different ways but one way
0:41:25 is to say that the best
0:41:27 explanation of getting a temporal cause
0:41:30 from any term a temporal effect from an
0:41:33 eternal cause
0:41:34 is to say that this cause had a will and
0:41:37 if it had a will then this is starting
0:41:39 to much
0:41:40 look much more like the picture of god
0:41:42 or a personal being
0:41:44 rather than just some kind of um
0:41:47 mechanistic
0:41:48 uh naturalistic explanation that an
0:41:50 atheist
0:41:51 uh might want to give so i think that
0:41:54 this provides
0:41:55 uh the best reason or the best uh
0:41:59 explanation of how you get a temporal
0:42:02 effect
0:42:03 from an eternal cause and the other
0:42:06 brothers mentioned some other
0:42:07 arguments as well but i think they um
0:42:10 covered it very well so i think that's
0:42:12 sufficient
0:42:13 um for the explanation i don't know if
0:42:15 you want to add anything else
0:42:16 uh yusuf for the other brothers
0:42:25 sorry i forgot to mute myself yeah so
0:42:27 just wanted to add
0:42:28 um in summary i think we can sort of
0:42:31 make this
0:42:32 rather simple um in the sense obviously
0:42:34 we've covered it in detail
0:42:36 um but this is just like one kind of
0:42:38 quick element into it
0:42:39 so we're understanding um this necessary
0:42:43 being
0:42:43 as being one that is independent that is
0:42:46 there is nothing outside of it
0:42:47 acting upon it there is no um
0:42:51 cause which this thing is the effect
0:42:54 of it exists utterly uniquely
0:42:57 we've not just um kind of thrown this
0:43:00 out there but we've given you reasoned
0:43:02 deductive arguments to lead you to these
0:43:03 conclusions
0:43:04 and with that we ask well
0:43:07 what is it that makes this thing
0:43:11 create or bring things that are
0:43:14 contingent that are dependent on it
0:43:16 into existence now the
0:43:20 the argument here is that if there is
0:43:23 nothing acting upon it
0:43:25 that it must be self-determined and that
0:43:28 this
0:43:28 is the closest thing that you're going
0:43:30 to get
0:43:32 to explaining that something has a will
0:43:34 and as brother abdul rahman pointed out
0:43:36 that you know even there's a whole
0:43:38 separate argument with regards to the
0:43:40 free will of human beings and we can
0:43:41 make a separate podcast i think it would
0:43:43 be a very good one as well
0:43:44 um on the idea of the the free will of
0:43:46 the human being
0:43:47 but that is a separate tangent that we
0:43:48 don't want to get into today
0:43:50 and we'll we'll set something aside for
0:43:52 that in particular but to focus on
0:43:54 today's argument that this necessary
0:43:57 being
0:43:58 has a will and by definition would be
0:44:01 the the freest
0:44:02 kind of will there are no external
0:44:06 um causes acting upon it and
0:44:09 so therefore they're they're we we are
0:44:11 opening up this idea of something
0:44:13 choosing to act as and when it pleases
0:44:17 uh without and that being completely
0:44:19 self-dependent not relying on
0:44:21 external things um interacting with it
0:44:24 in any way
0:44:25 it is a a willing being
0:44:28 choosing uh to bring things that are
0:44:30 dependent upon it
0:44:31 into existence so i i think that pretty
0:44:34 much wraps it up in a
0:44:36 rather yeah
0:44:39 you know there's uh there's something
0:44:41 called seti search for extraterrestrial
0:44:43 intelligence
0:44:45 and this is where scientists are looking
0:44:46 at the sky in the universe
0:44:48 and they're trying to look for signals
0:44:49 which have no naturalistic
0:44:51 origin meaning it cannot be explained by
0:44:54 the physical
0:44:55 laws because if something cannot be
0:44:57 explained by physical laws which
0:45:00 would necessitate or a would which would
0:45:03 cause
0:45:04 a particular set of effects then the
0:45:06 only
0:45:07 cause that would uh would create these
0:45:09 types of like
0:45:10 radio waves yeah or signals within the
0:45:13 universe
0:45:14 would require an intelligence so the way
0:45:17 seti and scientists look for
0:45:19 intelligence
0:45:20 is when they identify that something
0:45:23 that
0:45:24 occurs cannot be explained by
0:45:27 naturalistic
0:45:28 forces therefore it must be explained by
0:45:31 the idea of intelligence
0:45:32 and a conscious agent and in essence
0:45:35 we're doing the exact same thing here
0:45:37 so even if people turn around and say
0:45:38 well it quote-unquote it's not
0:45:39 scientific it's
0:45:40 this that another actually this is what
0:45:42 science does in terms of the
0:45:44 the seti project marshall up so
0:45:48 uh just to kind of let you know as well
0:45:50 me and brother sharif
0:45:51 uh it's my grip so we're gonna have to
0:45:53 just nip away for five minutes and pray
0:45:55 and but we're gonna kind of open it up
0:45:57 now with a conversation with brother
0:45:59 justin
0:46:00 um and he's going to begin the
0:46:01 conversation with brother jake and
0:46:02 brother abdulrahman
0:46:04 and we will be back shortly um so just
0:46:07 bear with us
0:46:08 and that's just kind of explain our
0:46:09 absence now uh so i'll just bring
0:46:12 justin in we'll say our greetings hello
0:46:14 justin
0:46:15 hello captain smith you guys got to run
0:46:18 away
0:46:19 yeah we're going to be here with you
0:46:21 you're just
0:46:22 too intimidating we're gonna uh we'll be
0:46:24 back in five minutes
0:46:25 i'd be less intimidating if you would
0:46:27 still have your beard but then
0:46:28 i know i'm so good don't rub that i i
0:46:31 tried kneading it and making it look
0:46:34 better and it was the first time doing
0:46:35 it and i ruined it and then
0:46:37 i ended up with no beard it looked like
0:46:38 sabrina's hair from the rugrats
0:46:40 yeah it looked absolutely terrible so
0:46:43 i'm going to uh
0:46:44 enjoy next time learn from my mistake
0:46:46 and leave it
0:46:47 to a barber to try and sort out but um
0:46:49 i'm gonna have to run
0:46:50 so i'll talk to you when i get back but
0:46:52 go
0:46:53 enjoy your conversation with the other
0:46:55 two brothers all right
0:46:56 what's up justin what's going on what's
0:46:59 up
0:47:01 nothing much man i see you've been
0:47:03 listening in the background so what do
0:47:05 you think
0:47:07 i like what you guys are saying i did
0:47:08 have a question um
0:47:10 how does something causes causelessly
0:47:13 cause
0:47:14 i'm kind of confused about that oh i
0:47:17 think that was
0:47:18 similar language that abdul was using if
0:47:20 i'm correct
0:47:22 right it causes it causes without
0:47:24 external influence or let's say
0:47:26 it causes without like um the need for a
0:47:29 mechanistic process
0:47:30 and and uh the closest thing we can
0:47:34 you know um we the closest thing we have
0:47:37 to that from our experience is
0:47:39 our will i don't want to take you to
0:47:41 discussion about free will but i'm just
0:47:43 talking about your experience of free
0:47:44 will hey
0:47:45 i want to raise my hand i raise my hand
0:47:48 so that's basically what i mean by
0:47:50 causelessly causing in a way you can say
0:47:51 that there's something causing it which
0:47:52 is the will
0:47:53 but i mean what initiates the action is
0:47:55 not a mechanistic process and it's not
0:47:57 something that relies
0:47:58 on a process that is external to
0:48:02 the agent that is acting okay okay which
0:48:06 is something that i would like to talk
0:48:07 about because if you guys
0:48:09 you know you i speak to you guys about
0:48:11 on a daily basis
0:48:12 um i've recently kicked materialism out
0:48:16 the window
0:48:17 and uh and took up dualism still as an
0:48:19 atheist but i'm a duelist
0:48:22 um just because it just doesn't make any
0:48:24 sense you know
0:48:25 it took a while for me to understand
0:48:26 what you guys were saying like your
0:48:28 contentions with materialism
0:48:30 and whatnot and i eventually i
0:48:33 eventually kicked that
0:48:34 kicked that can out the window getting
0:48:36 closer justin i i am i am and somebody
0:48:38 had said in the chat
0:48:40 uh i don't exactly remember who said it
0:48:42 but somebody said that
0:48:44 um that with islam there's there's only
0:48:48 the need to believe that there is a
0:48:50 creator
0:48:51 and anything further than that would
0:48:53 come from revelation how do you guys
0:48:54 feel about that
0:48:56 i i don't understand what do you mean
0:48:59 let me look at the exact
0:49:03 i'll look at the exact quote i mean
0:49:05 there are things that
0:49:06 are going to come from revelation that
0:49:08 we just you know
0:49:10 ipso facto believe from revelation and
0:49:13 not everything has to be rationally
0:49:14 accessible about god even though i think
0:49:16 to a very large degree it is but um
0:49:20 if you're talking about like a generic
0:49:21 understanding of god like a conscious
0:49:23 being with
0:49:24 free will and intelligence and causal
0:49:26 power
0:49:28 that's it says i'm here in the chat um i
0:49:31 don't want to call him out
0:49:32 um but somebody in the chat had said one
0:49:34 point that's not made so often
0:49:36 islam only necessitates that we believe
0:49:38 in the existence of a creator
0:49:40 as his as his attributes and not sensed
0:49:44 ultimately we need a revelation from him
0:49:46 to know his attributes
0:49:49 okay but i mean because the fact that
0:49:52 islam requires it means that you would
0:49:53 already have a revelation for himself so
0:49:55 i guess what he would be saying was that
0:49:56 like
0:49:57 you know uh um aside from scripture
0:50:01 like pre-scripturally you would uh if
0:50:04 you're
0:50:04 if you if you're accountable for
0:50:06 believing in anything then that would
0:50:07 simply be
0:50:09 uh an intelligent creator um
0:50:12 i guess that's what we'd be saying so so
0:50:14 to a certain degree i agree that that
0:50:16 that
0:50:16 there are things about the creator that
0:50:18 we can only know through revelation
0:50:20 but generally speaking i think overall
0:50:23 they're rationally accessible and they
0:50:24 are coherent
0:50:26 and i think that the islamic conception
0:50:27 of god is the most coherent conception
0:50:30 of god
0:50:31 yeah not only that i don't know if this
0:50:33 person is a muslim and where they're
0:50:35 getting the idea from but
0:50:37 even our scholars talk about the
0:50:39 attributes the rational attributes
0:50:42 that can be known apart from revelation
0:50:45 so we make a distinction between the two
0:50:48 um and i don't know if he
0:50:51 you know was trying to say all of the
0:50:53 attributes so we can't know
0:50:54 any of them apart from revelation but
0:50:56 this is not
0:50:57 uh from my understanding is not the uh
0:51:00 traditional
0:51:01 uh sunni understanding of god and his
0:51:04 attributes
0:51:05 they make a distinction between the
0:51:07 rational ones that we can apprehend like
0:51:10 knowledge uh power will etc
0:51:13 um but there are certain attributes of
0:51:15 course that we we wouldn't necessarily
0:51:17 be able to prove
0:51:18 um purely from a rationalistic per
0:51:22 perspective but we we want to be careful
0:51:24 and say that
0:51:25 there there's not there's at least some
0:51:27 that we can speak about
0:51:29 intelligently um apart from revelation
0:51:33 um so yeah we we have to make that
0:51:35 distinction so
0:51:37 i just hope that the um the person who
0:51:39 commented
0:51:40 understands that point some of the
0:51:42 attributes we can
0:51:43 know apart from revelation some we can't
0:51:46 okay so you're saying you're saying
0:51:48 something we can't can you
0:51:50 give an example of those i mean i agree
0:51:52 but i just i just uh
0:51:54 can't think of any um
0:51:58 let me think off the top of my head um
0:52:07 if you think about like god's goodness
0:52:09 god's moral goodness or god's justice
0:52:12 i mean from our experience there are
0:52:13 rational arguments that
0:52:15 that kind of um try to make a case for
0:52:18 the fact that
0:52:19 the necessary foundation or god must be
0:52:23 a a morally good
0:52:26 being so i i don't know
0:52:30 what attributes specifically but i don't
0:52:32 know from our theological perspective i
0:52:34 don't want to say anything wrong
0:52:35 but just generally personally from my
0:52:37 view
0:52:38 even aside from scripture i find that
0:52:41 the islamic conception of god is the one
0:52:43 that
0:52:44 comports to my uh pre-scriptural
0:52:48 conception of god
0:52:49 which is that uh you know everything
0:52:51 about the islamic conception of god for
0:52:52 me is rationally accessible
0:52:54 it doesn't mean we don't need scripture
0:52:55 we definitely need scripture i'm saying
0:52:56 that in a certain context
0:53:00 okay okay i was gonna say i mean if if
0:53:02 that was true
0:53:03 then i i already have uh the shahada
0:53:05 pulled up and i was gonna go ahead and
0:53:07 say it today but i mean you guys kind of
0:53:08 talked me out of it
0:53:12 um
0:53:14 if only we need if the only thing that
0:53:16 islam necessitates is that you believe
0:53:17 in some type of
0:53:18 existence that caused everything then
0:53:21 i'll be like okay i'm there
0:53:22 well justin because because we need to
0:53:24 contextualize things so as far as
0:53:26 certain arguments are concerned for
0:53:28 example if you look at the kalam
0:53:29 cosmological argument alone
0:53:31 that's not going to get you god's
0:53:32 goodness right
0:53:34 um so so it depends on what
0:53:37 kind of line of reasoning you're you're
0:53:39 discussing
0:53:40 and generally speaking i think about and
0:53:43 you know different arguments will work
0:53:45 for different people and and we spoke
0:53:46 about this before about how
0:53:48 grand marque's philosophy of
0:53:49 argumentation right how it's it's very
0:53:51 appealing because
0:53:52 because it's it's contextualized that an
0:53:54 argument will work for you
0:53:56 if you accept the premises if you don't
0:53:58 accept the premises
0:53:59 then then a good argument what it will
0:54:02 do is it will point to some kind of
0:54:03 consistency within your prior beliefs
0:54:06 that would make you you know have to do
0:54:08 some work
0:54:09 to maybe either accept the premise or uh
0:54:12 or
0:54:13 you know reevaluate your beliefs but
0:54:15 generally speaking not all
0:54:16 arguments are going to work for
0:54:18 everybody but uh but
0:54:20 there are i think at least cosmological
0:54:22 arguments
0:54:24 and putting them like uh um
0:54:27 extending cosmological arguments to
0:54:29 other arguments and making a
0:54:31 cumulative case i think in that sense
0:54:33 it's appealing to
0:54:35 anybody because because we all except
0:54:38 for like a radical skeptic who says that
0:54:40 we can't know anything i mean i i don't
0:54:41 know if it's even useful to have a
0:54:43 discussion with that kind of person
0:54:45 but yeah but generally i think these
0:54:47 arguments are
0:54:48 they make of i think they make atheism
0:54:51 irrational
0:54:52 i mean i can make that strong claim i
0:54:54 think it's irrational
0:54:56 in light of these arguments atheism is
0:54:58 irrational i would
0:54:59 make that kind of a bold statement yeah
0:55:02 okay
0:55:02 okay
0:55:07 yeah good man i was just obviously i had
0:55:09 to go and pray so i couldn't hear the
0:55:11 discussion so
0:55:12 have you convinced him yet about belief
0:55:14 in a god yet
0:55:17 oh i'm there i'm there with a with a
0:55:18 necessary being
0:55:21 is there's a necessary being do you
0:55:22 believe in necessary stage two brother
0:55:25 do you believe that a necessary being
0:55:26 needs to have a will no
0:55:29 why yeah
0:55:34 i don't think reality has a will reality
0:55:37 to me is the causal necessary principle
0:55:39 for the
0:55:39 for the existence of the universe so
0:55:42 with reality reality is the equivalent
0:55:44 to god
0:55:44 uh reality causes i wouldn't use the
0:55:47 word
0:55:48 created but i would use the word causes
0:55:50 uh
0:55:51 matter space time consciousness all
0:55:53 those things
0:55:54 i've been looking into something called
0:55:56 neutral monism are you guys familiar
0:55:58 with that
0:56:00 yes but what do you mean by reality
0:56:02 causes
0:56:04 reality what is reality in that is it
0:56:07 just
0:56:08 like a um i mean what is reality in that
0:56:12 equation a plane of existence where
0:56:15 every contingent thing
0:56:17 is derived from but you understand that
0:56:20 the term con
0:56:21 existence is a predicate it's something
0:56:24 that you give
0:56:26 as a property of a being it's not
0:56:28 something that exists
0:56:30 so i can't use existence as a noun well
0:56:32 and the way you're using it
0:56:34 as well as you will use it as an
0:56:36 adjective isn't it
0:56:39 well yeah yeah okay and i guess you
0:56:41 could also this is still
0:56:43 just referring to the fact that anything
0:56:45 that has existence you're sort of
0:56:47 putting it into that
0:56:48 but we've already spent a bit of time
0:56:50 discussing why there's a distinction and
0:56:51 you've already
0:56:52 um conceded to this there's a
0:56:54 distinction between two different kinds
0:56:56 of existence
0:56:57 that being possible existence or
0:56:58 contingent beings and the necessary
0:57:00 being
0:57:01 so when you're describing existence in
0:57:03 the way you are
0:57:04 you're just putting these all of these
0:57:06 things into one category despite there
0:57:08 being a huge distinction between
0:57:10 that which gives rise to possible
0:57:12 existence
0:57:13 and the thing that's making them come
0:57:16 into being itself
0:57:18 so you've already said that there is a
0:57:20 necessary being
0:57:23 and to say well existence doesn't have a
0:57:26 will
0:57:27 that's to completely forget all the
0:57:29 argumentation that's been leading up to
0:57:31 this distinction between different kinds
0:57:32 of
0:57:33 existent beings that is necessary and
0:57:36 possible and to say well this
0:57:39 as a whole can't have a will we've not
0:57:42 been arguing for that
0:57:43 we've said we've admitted yes there are
0:57:45 there is this thing called
0:57:46 existent beings now if you go into that
0:57:50 bubble of things are there different
0:57:53 kinds of existent beings
0:57:54 yes there's a necessary being and
0:57:56 there's a possible being or possible
0:57:57 beings
0:57:58 plural and we're saying that the
0:58:02 uh the necessary has to have a will and
0:58:05 we gave their reasoning there so
0:58:07 if this necessary being is independent
0:58:10 yeah it is bringing things into being
0:58:13 there is this strange occurrence here of
0:58:15 the the lack of
0:58:16 causality in the sense that this being
0:58:18 isn't being acted
0:58:19 upon in the same way so i know you're a
0:58:22 determinist yeah
0:58:23 are you still there i've moved on that
0:58:26 too
0:58:27 but so but even if you would let me just
0:58:30 clarify real quick i
0:58:31 i am a hard incompatibilist uh in the
0:58:33 same sense as jake
0:58:36 we just sit on different ends of the
0:58:38 spectrum i am a hard incompatibilist
0:58:40 that uh negates free will that leans
0:58:43 towards determinism negates free will
0:58:45 and or moral responsibility okay right
0:58:48 but you understand just in that when you
0:58:50 say existence
0:58:51 is the necessary existence you're using
0:58:55 existence that
0:58:56 has an adjective exactly it doesn't make
0:58:59 sense when you say existing no no no
0:59:02 reality is
0:59:05 so what i would need to do is is find a
0:59:07 way to separate
0:59:08 reality from existence find a
0:59:11 distinction between those two things
0:59:12 because i'm not necessarily trying to
0:59:14 say
0:59:15 that existence is existence or reality
0:59:18 is reality
0:59:19 yeah exactly the way you are if i turn
0:59:22 around if i say reality
0:59:23 is that which exists as either a
0:59:26 possible existence or a necessary
0:59:28 existence which i think what joseph was
0:59:29 saying before
0:59:31 then yes but that's what we agree that
0:59:33 reality
0:59:35 is that which exists as a possible
0:59:36 existence and or it's a necessary
0:59:38 existence
0:59:39 now all we're saying is okay you've got
0:59:41 possible existence
0:59:42 which are possible and need to be
0:59:44 actualized have a particular attribute
0:59:47 or that they began to exist and a
0:59:50 necessary existence which is eternal
0:59:53 uh which had to do the actualizing now
0:59:55 the actualizing or the causing
0:59:58 of these possible things it required a
1:00:01 choice
1:00:02 otherwise these possible things are no
1:00:03 longer possible they're necessary as
1:00:05 well
1:00:06 and not only that yeah go sorry and also
1:00:09 so
1:00:11 the idea that existence doesn't
1:00:14 necessarily have to have a will
1:00:16 we're conceding that with the idea that
1:00:18 possible existence
1:00:20 can have a will and cannot have a will
1:00:22 that is some
1:00:23 of possible existent beings a number by
1:00:26 possible existence you mean contingent
1:00:28 beings
1:00:29 yeah yeah so they can be their their
1:00:31 non-existence is not inconceivable
1:00:33 so that you know these things can come
1:00:35 into being and they can cease to be
1:00:37 you know they can originate that they
1:00:38 have a will i would just say that their
1:00:40 will isn't
1:00:41 uh isn't derived from free choice
1:00:44 like that their their will right but
1:00:46 then that complicates it even further
1:00:48 because
1:00:48 if you want to say because we're saying
1:00:50 i'm saying that there i think like a
1:00:51 stone
1:00:52 doesn't necessarily have a will i'm
1:00:54 happy to concede that
1:00:56 you know we can go down this route of um
1:00:58 pansysm and things like that but
1:01:00 i'm happy to say that there are things
1:01:02 in existence that don't have a will
1:01:05 and you know if you're saying that then
1:01:08 we can say
1:01:09 yeah it's not necessarily the case that
1:01:11 existence
1:01:12 has to have a will well because we can
1:01:14 point at things in reality that don't
1:01:16 have a will so we
1:01:16 yeah that's fine but then again we've
1:01:18 already made a distinction between the
1:01:20 possible and the necessary
1:01:21 and the only reason you can say well
1:01:23 reality doesn't necessarily have to have
1:01:25 a will
1:01:27 that's a consequence of this
1:01:28 understanding that well possible
1:01:30 existence
1:01:31 and may not have a will and so therefore
1:01:34 you can infer from
1:01:35 that to the idea that reality
1:01:38 doesn't have a will but then all you're
1:01:40 talking about here is the set of
1:01:41 contingent things
1:01:44 and you're not seeing that we've already
1:01:46 made a distinction between that set
1:01:48 and the necessary existence so then when
1:01:50 we're talking about the necessary
1:01:52 existence there is no other way of
1:01:53 explaining this is
1:01:55 other than having the ability to choose
1:01:58 there's nothing acting upon it
1:01:59 making it do anything whatever
1:02:02 actions are coming from it whatever um
1:02:05 effects come from it
1:02:07 are self-determined and this is about as
1:02:10 free as a will as you're gonna get and
1:02:11 then on top of that with what you've
1:02:12 just said
1:02:13 um the this can you repeat what you just
1:02:16 mentioned there about you can imagine
1:02:18 um you know these things as having a
1:02:19 will but a deterministic will basic
1:02:22 basically i have a will that's that's
1:02:25 derived from
1:02:27 a arena faculties of external factors
1:02:30 like my existence my brain my parents my
1:02:32 society
1:02:32 everything like that brings me to figure
1:02:35 out what i like what i don't like what i
1:02:37 think is right and wrong
1:02:39 true and false all of the things are
1:02:41 from external factors which are
1:02:42 influences
1:02:43 that could have neces could have caused
1:02:47 me
1:02:47 to believe that something is right or
1:02:49 wrong but this is great though bro
1:02:51 because
1:02:51 well for us not for you because if
1:02:54 you're willing to concede here
1:02:56 that you know all of these things
1:02:58 despite being determined have
1:03:00 will then you have to admit that
1:03:03 whatever this necessary being is has a
1:03:06 will that is not determined
1:03:07 therefore has a free will
1:03:11 because if you're willing to acknowledge
1:03:13 if it's determined by other causes
1:03:16 and this necessary being is independent
1:03:18 i there's no other causes
1:03:20 determining it is this necessary being
1:03:24 bound by by his nature
1:03:27 for example can this necessary being you
1:03:29 guys are speaking about
1:03:31 can it lie can it sin
1:03:34 can it shoot well i'm not going to say
1:03:36 choose not to exist because that's kind
1:03:37 of stupid
1:03:38 but can it do those things like it's
1:03:41 it's bound by its own nature
1:03:43 which means there's some deterministic
1:03:46 uh
1:03:47 attributes there see i would say this i
1:03:49 would say the problem with those types
1:03:51 of questions is that it sort of
1:03:53 goes a bit too further to where we're at
1:03:57 so we're at being and then we're trying
1:03:59 to say okay does it necessarily be
1:04:01 is it some sort of mechanical force
1:04:03 within the universe that has no
1:04:05 consciousness
1:04:06 no will and therefore was forced to
1:04:08 create so we're trying to move
1:04:10 the discussion from there to a will and
1:04:11 then we can start talking about other
1:04:13 properties
1:04:14 and i i mentioned the point i said if we
1:04:16 say reality
1:04:18 exists we're saying oh reality is
1:04:19 reality we're saying reality is either a
1:04:21 contingent being
1:04:23 and a necessary being isn't it and we're
1:04:25 saying well contingent beings didn't
1:04:26 don't explain their own existence
1:04:29 and necessary being does explain its own
1:04:31 existence by necessity has to exist
1:04:33 independently
1:04:34 and that the necessity necessary being
1:04:37 causes the contingent beings
1:04:39 to exist yeah now that causal
1:04:42 relationship
1:04:43 is it something that is forced or
1:04:46 compelled
1:04:48 upon the necessary being like a
1:04:50 mechanical force
1:04:51 now if it's forced or compelled the
1:04:54 problem
1:04:54 is is that then the possible beings
1:04:58 have to have always existed because
1:05:00 everything
1:05:01 sufficient for the necessary being to
1:05:04 bring the effect
1:05:05 into being or cause the effect always
1:05:07 exists
1:05:08 i agree yeah so therefore if the effect
1:05:12 comes in at a point in time
1:05:16 or begins then it means that the
1:05:19 necessary being having all of these
1:05:20 necessities
1:05:22 you know not having anything external to
1:05:24 itself the only explanation we have
1:05:26 open to us is that it chose and it's
1:05:29 like goes back to that
1:05:30 example i gave earlier i don't know if
1:05:31 you heard the example of seti
1:05:33 you know search for extraterrestrial
1:05:35 intelligence the reason why they look
1:05:37 for it how they look for intelligence
1:05:39 is they say is there a signal in the
1:05:41 universe
1:05:42 that doesn't have a naturalistic origin
1:05:45 that cannot be explained by some
1:05:47 physical
1:05:47 law if there's something that cannot be
1:05:49 explained by physical law
1:05:51 then it's an indication of intelligence
1:05:54 yeah and we're saying that this
1:05:57 necessary being
1:05:58 doesn't depend upon any physical laws
1:06:01 outside of itself
1:06:02 it therefore chooses to create
1:06:05 possible beings so basically what you're
1:06:08 saying is that
1:06:09 we're on the same page with the
1:06:11 necessary being we're on on the same
1:06:13 page with an eternal causal principle
1:06:15 for the universe itself
1:06:16 for exist existence itself you're saying
1:06:19 that
1:06:20 for things to change or for something to
1:06:23 be caused
1:06:24 there needs to be a will implemented
1:06:26 with this necessary being
1:06:28 to be able to change the state of
1:06:30 something
1:06:34 i was going to say we also agree that
1:06:36 contingent things began to exist don't
1:06:37 we
1:06:38 yes okay so we agree there's a necessary
1:06:41 eternal cause
1:06:42 and there's an effect of contingent
1:06:44 beings which began to exist
1:06:47 now if we explain the necessary being
1:06:51 as a mechanical force then if the cause
1:06:55 is eternal
1:06:56 the effect would be what if the cause is
1:06:59 eternal
1:07:01 the effect would be non-eternal no it
1:07:04 would be terrible
1:07:06 if the cause if everything sufficient to
1:07:08 cause an effect
1:07:10 exists then you're gonna have an effect
1:07:13 isn't it
1:07:15 okay i thought you meant the creation
1:07:18 itself would be eternal i'm like no no
1:07:20 the the
1:07:21 the creation like we are the effect
1:07:24 of yeah what's necessary being caused so
1:07:27 we would be contingent at that point
1:07:28 right
1:07:29 so the point here is this is uh this is
1:07:32 one of
1:07:32 three uh four arguments we mentioned
1:07:34 here but this one argument is saying
1:07:36 okay
1:07:37 if you've got an eternal cause that has
1:07:39 no choice to create
1:07:42 then the effect would have to be
1:07:46 eternal exactly but because we have
1:07:49 not an eternal effect we have a temporal
1:07:52 effect
1:07:53 then what can we say about the eternal
1:07:55 causing didn't have to create did it
1:08:01 it did not have to cause the effect
1:08:07 just just just
1:08:10 just repeat after me no i'm joking yeah
1:08:12 right
1:08:13 i already got to put it up right here on
1:08:15 my other monitor
1:08:17 um does that make sense yeah that that
1:08:20 makes sense that makes sense
1:08:23 and you guys have been talking to me
1:08:24 about this for months and i'm just
1:08:26 trying to been rap
1:08:26 trying to been able to wrap my head
1:08:28 around it and to be completely honest
1:08:29 look up arguments to completely tear
1:08:31 this down
1:08:32 yeah i've yet to get to find any
1:08:35 but you know that's just one argument
1:08:37 remember
1:08:38 the other arguments as well justin are
1:08:40 like for example
1:08:41 you know last after last time show we
1:08:44 had discussions
1:08:44 you had discussion with hartman the
1:08:46 other brothers here as well about
1:08:47 consciousness
1:08:48 and we agree and you've now become
1:08:51 you've rejected
1:08:52 materialism i think you're still on that
1:08:53 aren't you so you rejected materialism
1:08:56 you believe consciousness cannot be
1:08:58 explained by physical
1:08:59 physicality or physicalism there must be
1:09:02 something
1:09:03 that is external to the material realm
1:09:06 that cause consciousness you take a baby
1:09:09 step towards a shahada here justin
1:09:12 yeah so i'm just saying
1:09:15 there's so many different ways of
1:09:17 looking at this question
1:09:19 all of them seem to always point to a
1:09:21 necessary being
1:09:23 that has conscious awareness of what it
1:09:25 did
1:09:27 yeah or what it caused yeah
1:09:34 i don't want to push it justin because i
1:09:36 know something have to think about
1:09:37 it bro
1:09:43 a couple more days don't hit don't be
1:09:45 afraid to keep pushing
1:09:47 so justin remember this argument does
1:09:50 not necessarily lead you to islam
1:09:53 it leads you to theism but the next step
1:09:57 about islam and there's a few steps but
1:09:59 one of the key steps would be
1:10:01 is what religion best explains this
1:10:05 necessary being
1:10:06 yeah so which divine can you know the
1:10:09 lots of people claim to have received
1:10:11 this revelation from this necessary
1:10:12 being
1:10:13 that has a will consciousness
1:10:14 intelligence that created
1:10:16 through intentionality what best
1:10:19 explains it
1:10:20 well that's an easy step that's an easy
1:10:22 step that i've already been doing
1:10:24 i mean i've already been on that step as
1:10:26 an atheist like as an atheist you can
1:10:28 even do that use the
1:10:29 process of elimination looking at other
1:10:31 religions and seeing like
1:10:34 oh boy this this ain't gonna work this
1:10:36 ain't gonna work at all
1:10:37 yeah so i've already kind of been doing
1:10:40 that
1:10:41 uh and like i said the the few that are
1:10:44 left
1:10:45 are judaism and islam
1:10:50 yeah so how
1:10:53 how do we push judaism out of this
1:10:57 well before we do that i mean we
1:11:00 we have to you we have to get you to
1:11:02 agree that the
1:11:03 necessary being is god or at least
1:11:06 something
1:11:07 like it if you're not fine with the word
1:11:09 god because but to be honest
1:11:10 it sounds like he's already there like
1:11:12 if he's saying now his either judaism or
1:11:14 islam then
1:11:16 i think that he's gotta wait i want you
1:11:18 to take you gotta take it he's gonna say
1:11:20 it
1:11:20 but then he's gonna try also empathetic
1:11:23 no he's gotta
1:11:24 take the hat
1:11:25Laughter 1:11:29 right justin that there are i i just
1:11:31 think you have to i think you do know
1:11:32 this but you have to take it
1:11:34 there are responses to these arguments
1:11:38 from the atheist side there there's a
1:11:41 lot of back and forth right so it's not
1:11:43 like
1:11:43 right it's not like there isn't a
1:11:45 discussion to be had but what we're
1:11:46 telling you is that
1:11:47 all in all this is a very strong case
1:11:50 and i
1:11:51 i would argue that based on all this
1:11:54 evidence even if
1:11:55 even if i'm making a weaker case that
1:11:59 it is just rational there is some
1:12:04 some rationale to believe in god let's
1:12:06 say i think the stronger case is very
1:12:08 doable
1:12:08 that god does exist a deductive case but
1:12:11 even if i'm making the weaker case that
1:12:12 there is a rationale to believing god
1:12:15 and that there is this kind of like
1:12:16 epistemic permissiveness
1:12:18 in in this whole atheism theism
1:12:20 discussion that there is a rational
1:12:22 basis
1:12:23 through which you can adopt theism and
1:12:25 your
1:12:26 worldview as an atheist entails that
1:12:30 the truth about these existential and
1:12:32 philosophical questions
1:12:34 in the absence of the existence of god
1:12:36 doesn't even matter i mean
1:12:37 it's like like true your truth-bearing
1:12:41 faculties can be good
1:12:42 in terms of your survivability and in
1:12:45 terms of
1:12:45 benefiting you here and now but in terms
1:12:48 of these you know
1:12:50 complex and deep existential questions
1:12:53 in the absence of the existence of god
1:12:56 the truth of these uh uh
1:12:59 questions or propositions is literally
1:13:02 meaningless
1:13:02 in that bigger nihilistic picture of
1:13:05 atheism
1:13:06 so keeping that in mind and looking at
1:13:08 the other side and saying hey there's a
1:13:10 rational basis from that
1:13:12 yet choosing to remain as an atheist
1:13:14 when it doesn't even matter if you're an
1:13:15 atheist on atheism
1:13:18 is quite irrational it's
1:13:20 straightforwardly
1:13:21 irrational i i i think right so so
1:13:24 um yeah man i've purchased tickets to go
1:13:28 to the faithless forum in june so i
1:13:32 have to hold on for a couple more and
1:13:33 i'm just kidding
1:13:35 yeah i i i think you should they're
1:13:37 obviously don't worry justin
1:13:39 i don't know i don't know you could uh
1:13:41 you could be repping it for our side
1:13:43 when you go there yeah just just place
1:13:45 all the
1:13:46 youtubers off but so
1:13:49 can we just ask now so are you
1:13:53 have you moved from at the beginning of
1:13:55 this stream saying that the necessary
1:13:56 cause doesn't have a will
1:13:58 to accepting that there is a good case
1:14:00 to say that it does
1:14:02 i'm accepting that there is a good case
1:14:04 to say that it does yeah yeah that's all
1:14:06 we're asking so it's also a good case to
1:14:08 say
1:14:08 that we can't show that other minds
1:14:10 exist but i mean i don't think any of us
1:14:12 here are solipsists so
1:14:14 that's going to be something to sit down
1:14:16 and think on all right but
1:14:17 the question is is do you is that a
1:14:19 problem you
1:14:20 inclined to i do
1:14:24 you know the existence of your children
1:14:28 so they do you doubt the existence of
1:14:30 your children when you look at them
1:14:32 oh so it's not really a problem for you
1:14:35 no
1:14:36 all right so we don't need to cover that
1:14:39 he's saying if you use the same
1:14:41 epistemic approach justification
1:14:44 justification towards other minds
1:14:47 for like for example our children then
1:14:50 we can use the same
1:14:51 principle when it comes to the necessary
1:14:53 being
1:14:54 i have a daughter there's no amount of
1:14:56 argumentation that people are going to
1:14:58 be able to give me
1:14:59 that's going to doubt whether or not my
1:15:02 daughter is another mind and can
1:15:03 experience pain
1:15:04 in order for me to kind of neglect or
1:15:07 disregard pain being caused on her by
1:15:09 someone or being skeptical either yeah
1:15:13 there's there's zero skepticism with
1:15:15 regards to the existence of my daughter
1:15:16 and that she is another mind
1:15:18 and that she is capable of experiencing
1:15:19 pain and
1:15:21 like i am heavily convinced of that and
1:15:23 like i don't care
1:15:24 and i know how deep into these
1:15:26 philosophical labyrinths we can get
1:15:28 and how confusing uh things can become
1:15:32 when you ponder on them a little too
1:15:33 much but it's in the same ways when
1:15:35 you're looking at words and they cease
1:15:37 to stop looking like words
1:15:40 i i make it equivalent to that for me
1:15:42 there isn't a problem
1:15:44 with other conscious i think you exist i
1:15:46 think you are a being
1:15:47 i think we are having it back and forth
1:15:49 now
1:15:50 and there's things rattling in your mind
1:15:52 there's things rattling in our mind and
1:15:53 we're enjoying each other's company
1:15:55 i don't think there's a problem with
1:15:56 that and so
1:15:58 that would only be an issue if you if
1:16:01 you even considered that seriously but i
1:16:03 really don't think you do
1:16:04 so i really don't think this is an
1:16:05 impediment to anything that we've given
1:16:07 you so far
1:16:08 so then i kind of just put it to you
1:16:10 again like so
1:16:12 are you moving from the stage of
1:16:14 accepting that there's at least good
1:16:16 arguments i'm not making
1:16:17 i'm not telling you right she had a time
1:16:19 i'm just saying is there
1:16:20 a good argument to suggest that this
1:16:23 necessary being has a will
1:16:25 is self-determined and not acted upon
1:16:28 from external causes do you think we've
1:16:31 made that position well and are you at
1:16:33 least willing to sort of
1:16:34 move that you have good arguments to
1:16:37 show that
1:16:38 the necessary being has a will okay
1:16:40 alhamdulillah
1:16:42 so that's that's i guess one
1:16:45 step closer to the shahadah at least
1:16:48 i've been moving quickly lately damn
1:16:50 yeah if you have these conversations
1:16:52 got rid of materialism got rid of
1:16:54 determinism
1:16:56 well actually i think i think it's
1:16:59 something to to dwell on for a little
1:17:01 bit let it marinate
1:17:03 um actually you're making progress and i
1:17:06 think
1:17:07 insulin i'm just trying to be
1:17:08 open-minded yeah yeah no that's good
1:17:10 don't worry and and i think um like i
1:17:13 said i'm enjoying our conversations and
1:17:15 i think all the airports do as well
1:17:16 so um just keep on we'll talk we'll talk
1:17:19 about this again justin i want to talk
1:17:20 to you about the modal epistemological
1:17:22 argument
1:17:23 sounds fancy right but it can be
1:17:25 relevant because
1:17:26 it's um yeah it has to do with how even
1:17:29 if our
1:17:30 advancement develops no matter what
1:17:32 situation you're in
1:17:34 you know your your epistemic position
1:17:36 isn't going to really can't really
1:17:37 change with regard to
1:17:39 your position on an agent that caused
1:17:42 the existence of the universe
1:17:44 it's not going to change it's it's so
1:17:47 yeah so we can have that discussion too
1:17:49 and uh yeah yeah if you missed it
1:17:53 i said my shahada where you were going
1:17:57 i was listening i was listening
1:18:00 you know the problem is i for some
1:18:01 reason on this stream i can't hear
1:18:03 abdulrahman
1:18:04 so every time he speaks i have to put my
1:18:06 uh youtube on to listen to it
1:18:07 jump out and come back in maybe i'll try
1:18:10 that i'll try that
1:18:10 it'll take a second do it now just leave
1:18:12 studio and then and join again
1:18:15 i might miss justin
1:18:19 that ain't happening today but i won't
1:18:21 say that it won't happen in the future
1:18:23 we'll keep you in our mail our guide any
1:18:26 last words justin that you want to say
1:18:27 or anything that
1:18:29 um no i normally in my shows a certain
1:18:32 way but i'm not gonna
1:18:33 i'm not gonna say that on your show
1:18:37 i don't think i would call it the very
1:18:38 end of your show so i have no idea i
1:18:40 always say have a good night stay home
1:18:41 stay safe and let's make america secular
1:18:43 again
1:18:44Laughter 1:18:47 but uh thanks for having me on guys and
1:18:49 we'll be on i guess next time you come
1:18:51 you come on i'll try and jump on with
1:18:58 i think a brilliant oh oh no he's gone
1:19:00 to to try and jump back in again on me
1:19:02 yeah honda i think that was uh great
1:19:04 progress
1:19:06 any thoughts uh before we bring on the
1:19:08 the next guest
1:19:11 oh what we were just talking about
1:19:12 really brother jake i want you to say
1:19:14 something because
1:19:15 we've uh we've kind of been bullying you
1:19:17 into silence
1:19:18 by accident no that's right i mean i
1:19:21 talked to justin quite frequently so
1:19:24 um you know we've been back and forth on
1:19:27 some of these arguments and
1:19:28 um i think he's moving you know
1:19:32 sort of inching closer and closer and uh
1:19:35 i'm sure we'll talk to him off air some
1:19:38 more about this but um
1:19:40 yeah i mean i think it's a good thing
1:19:42 inshallah right
1:19:43 we got brother sharif back and now we're
1:19:46 going to bring on
1:19:47 brother call to
1:20:21Music 1:20:26 i was listening to justin there was um
1:20:30 any other arguments you could have used
1:20:32 for um
1:20:34 uh for reaching this conclusion that the
1:20:38 the creator must have a will me of
1:20:41 course there is the
1:20:42 obvious um argument that there is a
1:20:45 change in the world
1:20:47 there are things coming into existence
1:20:48 and others going out of existence
1:20:51 there are contingent things so there
1:20:52 must be um
1:20:55 the will of the creator who is changing
1:20:57 these things and who is
1:20:59 bringing these things into existence so
1:21:02 the case it didn't have a will
1:21:06 nothing would occur in the world and
1:21:08 nothing would continue to exist in the
1:21:10 world
1:21:10 so that is um that's a correct approach
1:21:14 but then yeah this is one part one
1:21:16 aspect of this
1:21:17 um of this um argument
1:21:21 um which any some skeptics might come
1:21:24 with the
1:21:25 um with the kind of contention or the
1:21:29 cancer arguments
1:21:30 that how do we know that it is a will
1:21:33 why is why shouldn't it be a natural
1:21:35 a naturally moving agent because as you
1:21:38 know there is um
1:21:39 um there is what is things that move by
1:21:42 their nature and there are things which
1:21:44 move by their will
1:21:45 so for example if you lift up a rock and
1:21:48 you
1:21:48 uh leave it to fall down it falls by its
1:21:51 nature it doesn't fall by a will
1:21:54 so some atheists and agnostics might
1:21:56 come with this contention that
1:21:57 why shouldn't the creator be something
1:21:59 like like a machine or like
1:22:01 another living yes do you mind if i just
1:22:04 try and answer that so i would say that
1:22:06 these things
1:22:07 um are not moving by their nature as
1:22:10 though they're independent beings
1:22:11 so the only reason a rock would fall if
1:22:13 you lift it is because of its relation
1:22:15 to other things
1:22:17 that are around it um that it is in
1:22:19 relation to
1:22:20 and uh which i guess you could say um
1:22:24 you know the the the forces that are
1:22:25 causing for example gravity
1:22:27 here uh in the case of the rock falling
1:22:29 um
1:22:30 the these forces themselves
1:22:33 uh are caused by something that is the
1:22:37 uh the objects that the the rock is
1:22:39 finding itself on so
1:22:40 earth in this example um
1:22:43 i tend to agree that um things that move
1:22:46 by their nature they require
1:22:47 some kind of external maintenance like
1:22:50 for example a rock wouldn't fall down
1:22:51 unless somebody lifts the top
1:22:53 you see that kind of there is has to be
1:22:55 some kind of input
1:22:57 but um there is this um any basically
1:23:00 the atheists
1:23:01 um and they they have this uh and i
1:23:04 think it's
1:23:04 um it's useful in this context to to
1:23:07 point out that that is
1:23:09 um that the perfection of allah the
1:23:11 perfection of god
1:23:13 requires that he has a will so if allah
1:23:16 is known to have created
1:23:18 um willing things that have will and
1:23:21 things that
1:23:22 act by their nature then
1:23:26 for sure god is going to have
1:23:29 is is more deserving of which you see so
1:23:32 um brother that's that's one argument
1:23:34 but i think there's a more foundational
1:23:36 point here so
1:23:37 so let's say let's say there aren't any
1:23:38 external factors and this rock
1:23:41 moves from within its own nature uh
1:23:44 there seems to be a um a premise that's
1:23:47 kind of snuck in there
1:23:49 that the rock doesn't have a will and
1:23:51 this again takes us back to the problem
1:23:52 of other minds right
1:23:54 so if if we can see that something does
1:23:56 move
1:23:57 of its own nature which we don't
1:23:58 normally see we see that in our
1:24:01 own acts of will but if we can see let's
1:24:04 say
1:24:05 let's say in in the case of quantum
1:24:07 fluctuations i know
1:24:08 that this isn't the case and that there
1:24:10 is a cause but let's assume for the sake
1:24:12 of argument that something happens with
1:24:14 no
1:24:14 apparent you know immediately uh
1:24:18 acting cause on on the event well
1:24:21 what makes you uh say that this thing is
1:24:25 not the result
1:24:26 of a willful intentional agent
1:24:30 because it it's it's kind of exactly the
1:24:32 same thing you see
1:24:33 when a another creature that we actually
1:24:36 know has a will
1:24:38 uh when you see that creature behaving
1:24:40 in a non-deterministic manner that
1:24:42 indicates that it's not just merely
1:24:43 reacting on the physical stimuli that
1:24:45 surrounds it
1:24:46 you infer that it has a will so why are
1:24:48 we assuming that
1:24:50 this rock or the quantum fluctuation
1:24:53 even though they're both
1:24:54 not the best examples because there are
1:24:56 physical surroundings that make them
1:24:57 behave the way they do
1:24:58 but let's say there aren't then why are
1:25:00 we assuming there is no will that's
1:25:01 acting upon that if we reach the edge of
1:25:03 the universe if there is an edge
1:25:05 and we see things just popping into
1:25:07 existence right
1:25:11 with no cause whatsoever um why are we
1:25:14 assuming that this
1:25:15 is just something coming out of nothing
1:25:17 or something behaving behaving
1:25:18 uh naturalistically instead of assuming
1:25:20 that it is the result of some kind of
1:25:22 will because we do infer a will about
1:25:24 things that kind of behave in a similar
1:25:26 manner so yes well i'm just pointing out
1:25:28 that they have might have this
1:25:29 contention
1:25:31 i don't think the attention works yes i
1:25:33 agree with you
1:25:34 i agree with with the claim that it is
1:25:37 impossible for
1:25:38 things to for for a self-determining
1:25:41 thing to be
1:25:42 um to be a natural agent or to not have
1:25:45 will or to have volition yeah the
1:25:47 creator must have will it's uh yeah it's
1:25:50 his it's of his perfection and
1:25:52 everything which he creates
1:25:54 and he um is subject to his to his
1:25:57 creative agency so that that's enough
1:26:00 evidence
1:26:01 that um the natural things they are
1:26:04 dependent on
1:26:05 on a willing creator um i'm just saying
1:26:08 that some people
1:26:09 i've heard some people they use this
1:26:11 contention they might say yeah
1:26:13 i agree with your argument by the way so
1:26:15 i think it's a very good point i just
1:26:16 wanted to say that
1:26:17 the supreme nature yeah call to truth if
1:26:20 you heard
1:26:21 at the beginning of the stream uh when i
1:26:23 went through this point i said there's
1:26:25 four
1:26:25 arguments that we can use one of the
1:26:27 arguments that you mentioned there which
1:26:29 is
1:26:29 arbitrary limits because if you turn
1:26:31 around and say this non
1:26:32 this necessary being doesn't have
1:26:34 consciousness but other things have
1:26:36 consciousness within the universe
1:26:38 then you're creating an arbitrary limit
1:26:39 that needs an explanation
1:26:41 why does it have why does it not have a
1:26:44 consciousness when other things cat do
1:26:46 have consciousness
1:26:47 so then you this no longer becomes a
1:26:49 necessary independent being
1:26:51 but rather dependent upon some other
1:26:53 explanation
1:26:54 explanatory factor yeah so
1:26:57 uh so that's one of the arguments and it
1:26:59 fits in with what you're talking about
1:27:00 in terms of maximally perfect being as
1:27:02 well
1:27:03 because in essence what you're saying is
1:27:04 something that's unlimited independent
1:27:06 in all of its respects shouldn't have
1:27:08 any arbitrary limits
1:27:10 to limit it in in one way or another the
1:27:12 other arguments that we mentioned was
1:27:14 consciousness
1:27:15 uh the fact that consciousness cannot be
1:27:17 grounded upon materialism
1:27:18 the the the uh the other argument that i
1:27:22 mentioned is about
1:27:23 contingency the fact that things are
1:27:25 possible
1:27:26 and they need something to actualize one
1:27:28 possibility over
1:27:29 another possibility and the third uh the
1:27:32 actual
1:27:33 the final one that uh mentioned in uh
1:27:35 it's all in reverse order actually
1:27:37 because this is the first one i
1:27:38 mentioned
1:27:38 was the fact that the universal
1:27:40 continued things are the beginning
1:27:42 to their existence and the necessary
1:27:44 being is eternal
1:27:46 so even if somebody turns around and
1:27:48 says i don't think
1:27:49 this particular argument is compelling
1:27:53 yeah if you that doesn't refute all of
1:27:56 the other arguments that's just one
1:27:57 aspect of the argument
1:27:58 there are those other aspects of the
1:28:00 argument as well and
1:28:02 even you know people to talk about the
1:28:04 design of the universe
1:28:07 like the arguments from design they
1:28:09 indicate that there is intentional
1:28:11 um creativity yeah that's right that's
1:28:14 right so
1:28:15 there's numerous ways of tackling this
1:28:18 and i think for an atheist
1:28:20 uh you know when you look at the body of
1:28:22 evidence and the body of
1:28:23 arguments even if they have a contention
1:28:26 on one of those arguments
1:28:28 the body of the argument itself is
1:28:31 collectively
1:28:31 proof definitively my view
1:28:34 there is something you said there is
1:28:36 something you said um
1:28:38 on the in the beginning and i just
1:28:40 wanted to
1:28:41 to give my take on it it's not totally
1:28:44 related to this uh
1:28:45 topic but i don't know do you mind if i
1:28:47 speak about something which is
1:28:48 a little bit on a tangent or one
1:28:51 yourself's not here so he can't stop you
1:28:55 okay so you would say you were
1:28:57 mentioning that um
1:28:59 uh some of the uh like you were
1:29:02 mentioning that the attributes
1:29:04 um or the properties in the in creation
1:29:07 that they're kind of um their contingent
1:29:11 and that they are therefore going to be
1:29:13 in need of the
1:29:15 um the extent of an explanation yeah
1:29:18 an explanation who determines it one way
1:29:20 or another
1:29:22 and i i basically agree that everything
1:29:24 in the world is created so
1:29:26 um uh yeah the tree is created the human
1:29:30 being is created everything
1:29:32 is a sign of the creator
1:29:35 it's originated and it is contingent
1:29:39 but um basically i part ways
1:29:42 in that i believe that some of its
1:29:44 attributes are
1:29:45 possible to its existence whereas other
1:29:48 attributes are necessary to its
1:29:50 existence
1:29:51 so um this is i believe uh was
1:29:54 was in tamiya's um position regarding
1:29:56 the claim
1:29:57 that um some um
1:30:02 and if there are certain cases he
1:30:03 mentions anywhere it's
1:30:05 anyone has to be careful not to say
1:30:08 that a specific attribute any to say
1:30:11 that anything is possible you know what
1:30:12 i'm saying like you say
1:30:14 it's this size so it could be in another
1:30:16 size i can conceive of it
1:30:17 therefore it is logically possible this
1:30:20 i think is a bit
1:30:21 bit too hasty and this is where people
1:30:24 for make mistakes when they when they
1:30:26 speak about the fine-tuning
1:30:28 arguments sometimes they forget to to
1:30:31 use the very origination of the world as
1:30:33 an evidence
1:30:34 and they cling on to something which is
1:30:37 quite
1:30:39 we do we don't know for example whether
1:30:41 this property it's an
1:30:42 it's necessary to the existence of the
1:30:44 universe or whether it is contingent
1:30:47 so they might start thinking about these
1:30:49 start labeling them as contingent
1:30:51 but as they might in fact be necessary
1:30:53 to their existence
1:30:54 not that they are not created in the in
1:30:56 the universe they are all created
1:30:58 because everything in the world is
1:31:00 created
1:31:01 but some things like their non-existence
1:31:04 in their creations
1:31:05 in the creations would entail um a
1:31:07 logical contradiction
1:31:09 you see what i'm saying like for example
1:31:11 um when you take the power of the human
1:31:13 being
1:31:14 it's it's very much under it's comp
1:31:17 it's it's clear that it is uh not
1:31:20 necessary to the existence of the human
1:31:22 being because sometimes the human being
1:31:23 is powerful and at times he's weak or
1:31:26 it's taking
1:31:27 change yeah i think what you're talking
1:31:29 about is essential attributes aren't you
1:31:31 such that that thing which does not
1:31:33 exist means that the substance itself
1:31:36 doesn't exist
1:31:37 is that what you're referring to i'm
1:31:39 referring to uh
1:31:41 or i don't know what they call it i i
1:31:43 wouldn't take the um
1:31:45 yeah i'm just saying that there are some
1:31:46 things which are necessary like for
1:31:48 example
1:31:49 is essential attributes
1:31:53 which is like things which are
1:31:55 accidented
1:31:56 so yeah substance and accidents yeah
1:32:00 yes so so not everything so basically
1:32:03 um some and even he believed that there
1:32:06 are some arrangements
1:32:08 in the in nature um
1:32:11 the substance of these arrangements is
1:32:13 necessary to these arrangements
1:32:15 such that if there is any disassembly
1:32:20 yeah but the the substance in and of
1:32:22 itself is not necessary
1:32:24 yeah exactly so it's you're just you're
1:32:27 i think it's a it's a problem with
1:32:30 language the terminology that you're
1:32:31 using is not
1:32:33 how it's really used typically in the
1:32:35 discussion i mean
1:32:37 if it's um these things are essential
1:32:40 attributes
1:32:41 that's fine given the fact we can say
1:32:43 they're
1:32:44 contingently necessary in that sense um
1:32:48 in order for the thing to be what it is
1:32:50 but it's not necessary in and of itself
1:32:52 meaning that god
1:32:54 wasn't didn't have to create that thing
1:32:56 he could have created something else
1:32:58 or didn't create that thing at all
1:33:01 yeah it's called the truth i gave two
1:33:03 two explanations what i meant by
1:33:05 contingent
1:33:06 that which did not necessarily have to
1:33:08 exist it could have
1:33:09 existed could not have existed and
1:33:11 secondly that could have had other
1:33:13 attributes
1:33:14 so i am aware that there is something
1:33:16 called essential attributes such that
1:33:18 if that thing did not have those
1:33:20 particular attributes it would no longer
1:33:22 be that thing in itself
1:33:24 and then there are other attributes
1:33:25 which are the lack of these attributes
1:33:28 right
1:33:29 the lack of these attributes would be
1:33:30 logically impossible
1:33:32 it's not that the logic is possible
1:33:34 they're logically impossible to the
1:33:35 definition
1:33:36 of the thing so no i'm saying that it
1:33:38 would entail a contradiction
1:33:40 for a lazy attribute so for example
1:33:44 any when we speak about allah subhanahu
1:33:47 wa ta'ala his his attributes they are
1:33:49 they are his attributes of perfection
1:33:52 they they
1:33:53 they are they are never to be lacked
1:33:54 again because allah is is maximally
1:33:56 perfect
1:33:58 so his attributes
1:34:01 to him meaning that then the
1:34:03 non-existence it would entail
1:34:05 the non-existence of allah which is
1:34:06 logically impossible this is what i mean
1:34:08 by lazima so it's it would entail a
1:34:10 contradiction for the attribute
1:34:13 to not exist in the subject of its
1:34:16 attribution yeah but we're talking
1:34:18 we're talking we we have to distinguish
1:34:21 between the
1:34:22 conversation about god and then the
1:34:24 conversation about
1:34:25 created things and their attributes so i
1:34:28 thought you were focusing on
1:34:30 the things that are created that are not
1:34:33 and not speaking about god but now
1:34:35 you're shifting the conversation to god
1:34:37 and his attributes so
1:34:39 which one are we are we trying to deal
1:34:41 with
1:34:42 deal with the creation and the creation
1:34:44 is so do you think
1:34:46 do you think that anything in the
1:34:48 creation
1:34:49 and its attributes are necessary in and
1:34:52 of themselves
1:34:54 i don't know i believe that the creation
1:34:56 is not necessary in and of itself so
1:34:58 creation is
1:34:59 dependence and it's contingent
1:35:02 well then yeah that's all we're saying
1:35:04 yes yes but i'm saying that
1:35:06 it is one has to take care when when
1:35:09 arguing for allah's existence
1:35:11 not to point out an attribute in the
1:35:14 creation
1:35:14 which is might be necessary to the
1:35:17 existence
1:35:19 yeah brother so if you say the
1:35:21 definition so for example the definition
1:35:23 of a married person
1:35:25 it is essential that this person is not
1:35:27 a bachelor because a married bachelor
1:35:29 would be a contradiction but that
1:35:30 doesn't mean
1:35:31 that the existence of the married person
1:35:33 along with his pros
1:35:34 properties is a metaphysical necessity
1:35:36 right so you're talking about like
1:35:38 some some sort of an analytic concern
1:35:40 with with uh
1:35:42 you know definitionally true
1:35:43 propositions that if
1:35:45 they didn't have certain aspects or
1:35:47 certain properties about them
1:35:49 then the proposition would be
1:35:50 contradictory we don't deny that
1:35:52 but what we're talking about is more of
1:35:53 a metaphysical necessity a concrete
1:35:56 metaphysical necessity that explains
1:35:58 reality
1:36:00 i don't really understand what you mean
1:36:02 by
1:36:04 we're we're distinguishing between the
1:36:06 as we said the essential attributes
1:36:09 now that god has created everything that
1:36:11 he has
1:36:13 a bachelor in how it's defined has a
1:36:16 certain definition
1:36:17 but god didn't have to create bachelor's
1:36:20 at all
1:36:20 i mean the the the concept is not
1:36:24 necessary in and of itself that's that's
1:36:26 the distinction we're making
1:36:28 so i'm wondering if you think there's
1:36:31 anything
1:36:32 outside of god that he has created
1:36:35 that is necessary in and of itself if
1:36:38 not
1:36:38 then i don't see what the hang up is no
1:36:42 there is nothing that the i think it
1:36:45 calls the
1:36:45 truth i i mentioned the point i talked
1:36:47 about the red triangle
1:36:49 i said boy to have three sides is
1:36:51 necessary for its own definition
1:36:54 but for it to be read so that so i i
1:36:57 i understand and appreciate your point
1:36:59 and jose for
1:37:00 highlighting it but i i was aware that
1:37:03 there is something called essential
1:37:04 properties
1:37:05 or essential definitions such that if it
1:37:07 did not exist
1:37:08 the thing itself would not exist and uh
1:37:11 we wouldn't call it by what it is
1:37:13 yeah and that there are other ideas the
1:37:15 idea the context of this idea is that um
1:37:18 you know the
1:37:19 the asharia they had this argument that
1:37:22 i'll just give you the context quickly
1:37:23 before i go out so you can
1:37:24 continue with the next um or the next uh
1:37:27 quadrant inshallah
1:37:28 but the asari they had this argument
1:37:31 that yani basically
1:37:35 he is arguing that um god's existence
1:37:39 can be
1:37:39 argued from the argument from causation
1:37:42 which is that things
1:37:43 originate um the threes originate the
1:37:46 human beings originate everything in the
1:37:48 world is originating
1:37:49 and that therefore there must be an
1:37:50 eternal originator and he says that this
1:37:53 is
1:37:54 clearer than the argument from
1:37:55 contingency which is
1:37:57 although he accepts both yani which is
1:37:59 that they are contingent and
1:38:00 they therefore depend on unnecessary
1:38:02 being but he but he defines origination
1:38:05 in a different way so he argues that
1:38:06 origination is
1:38:07 to create things out of matter that's
1:38:10 when things originate so a tree is
1:38:11 originated
1:38:12 when it comes out of matter such that
1:38:14 the matter totally changes
1:38:16 one thing perishes and another thing
1:38:19 comes into existence that's his
1:38:20 idea about origination but then he
1:38:23 speaks about
1:38:24 the asharia when they were arguing um
1:38:27 against
1:38:28 um they were arguing for allah's
1:38:31 existence using the arguments called the
1:38:33 argument from specification
1:38:35 they would say that physical bodies
1:38:38 that's their arguments
1:38:39 physical bodies they are they have size
1:38:42 and measure and these sizes and measures
1:38:45 it's conceivable that they could be
1:38:47 bigger or smaller than they are
1:38:49 you see so they say if allah subhanahu
1:38:51 ta'ala
1:38:52 were about located above the heavens in
1:38:55 the way
1:38:56 that um ibrahimiya was arguing so if he
1:38:59 were
1:38:59 um above the heavens or he was uh i had
1:39:02 a tremendous extent
1:39:03 and these meanings uh then it would be
1:39:06 possible for him to be
1:39:08 uh smaller or larger that's what they
1:39:10 said
1:39:11 you see you see what i'm saying so so
1:39:14 even
1:39:15 responds by saying that the this
1:39:18 attribute of greatness of allah is
1:39:19 maximally perfect
1:39:21 and it could not be any way in in any
1:39:24 way different so the attributes of allah
1:39:27 is
1:39:28 of allah's greatness is is necessary
1:39:32 to his existence it can't be any way
1:39:34 different and he and he
1:39:36 then moves on to say that there are this
1:39:38 is also in creation some creations their
1:39:41 measure
1:39:41 is not going to be is not necessary to
1:39:45 their existence
1:39:46 uh sorry some some of their measures are
1:39:49 necessary to their existence so there
1:39:50 are
1:39:51 certain creations which have which can
1:39:53 which
1:39:54 uh which have to be in certain ways such
1:39:56 that if they were
1:39:57 greater they would be um it would entail
1:40:00 a contradiction
1:40:02 see it's about that yeah that's that's
1:40:04 the thing i think
1:40:05 i still don't understand i understand
1:40:08 how if they were different
1:40:10 uh greater or smaller in the way that
1:40:11 you're framing it
1:40:13 it may be something different it may be
1:40:15 a different it may entail that it's a
1:40:17 different thing
1:40:18 but why would the thing in and of itself
1:40:22 itself be necessary if it's not
1:40:24 necessary in and of itself
1:40:27 then the properties of it aren't
1:40:28 necessary yes
1:40:30 i'm not saying that the thing i'm saying
1:40:32 that the the attributes of
1:40:34 the measure the size so for example
1:40:37 is that why is any size whatsoever
1:40:40 necessary
1:40:42 i'm not saying it's necessary i'm saying
1:40:44 it's necessary to the existence of the
1:40:46 subject of its attribution
1:40:48 such that i mean i just think that the
1:40:52 language you're using is very sloppy
1:40:55 and it's not really being described
1:40:58 appropriately
1:40:59 you're just describing essential
1:41:01 attributes and then you're using the
1:41:03 word necessary
1:41:04 and it's not appropriate
1:41:08 i mean that's as far as far as i
1:41:10 understand you properly
1:41:13 i'm saying that yeah some things
1:41:16 in nature
1:41:19Music 1:41:20 we shouldn't like be be too hasty to say
1:41:23 that just because we can conceive of
1:41:25 something that means
1:41:27 it's it's logically possible so in order
1:41:30 to know that something is logically
1:41:31 possible
1:41:32 we have to have some kind of evidence
1:41:36 it's the other way around it's the other
1:41:37 way around in order to claim that
1:41:39 something is necessary
1:41:41 it couldn't be any other way and i'm
1:41:43 still trying to understand
1:41:45 how anything you're describing is
1:41:47 necessary
1:41:48 i don't understand that i'm not
1:41:50 describing the subjects of attribution
1:41:52 as necessary so i'm not saying okay
1:41:54 there's two things there's the substance
1:41:56 and there's the attributes the things
1:41:58 that are predicated
1:42:00 which one of those are you saying are
1:42:02 necessary
1:42:04 i'm saying that both are created so both
1:42:07 are um when i say it's necessary i'm
1:42:10 just pointing out
1:42:12 when i'm saying that the accident is
1:42:14 necessary i'm just pointing out that it
1:42:16 could
1:42:16 any given the existence of that
1:42:20 subject of attribution the accidents
1:42:24 couldn't be it can't be different
1:42:27 yes but that just means again that just
1:42:29 means that it's contingently necessary
1:42:32 it's not
1:42:32 necessary in and of itself but by the
1:42:35 fact that it exists the way it does
1:42:37 for example water is h2o
1:42:40 yes by the way that we understand it we
1:42:42 know that
1:42:43 it couldn't exist without hydrogen of
1:42:46 course
1:42:46 but the the water molecule of h2o
1:42:50 is not necessary it's only contingently
1:42:53 necessary because it's been created
1:42:56 but it didn't have to be that way do you
1:42:58 mind if i just jump in
1:43:00 so the conversation is very interesting
1:43:02 but i think we're kind of um
1:43:03 moving a bit off the the topic of the
1:43:05 subject of the stream a little bit
1:43:07 um do you mind if we wrap this up here
1:43:09 and inshallah i've we want to continue
1:43:11 the conversation we can maybe do this
1:43:12 offline um
1:43:21 for coming on it's been interesting
1:43:23 talking to you as always brother and um
1:43:24 inshallah maybe we can try and arrange
1:43:26 for a little conversation after the
1:43:28 stream at some point in the future
1:43:31 and i will speak to you again
1:43:36 so we've got the the next guest coming
1:43:39 on uh
1:43:40 the the legendary carlos who we have had
1:43:43 on
1:43:43 previously hello there carlos how are
1:43:45 you
1:43:47 hello don't try and pick me up
1:43:52 are you doing dude i'm good i'm good
1:43:54 yourselves guys you right
1:43:55 yeah not bad carlos we've already had
1:43:58 one atheist change his views
1:44:00 on the channel yeah
1:44:07 all right okay yeah i mean uh
1:44:10 unfortunately i
1:44:11 have missed some of the conversation so
1:44:12 i hopefully you won't have to repeat
1:44:14 yourselves too much i think i've got the
1:44:15 general gist of it
1:44:17 and i did watch the part one of the
1:44:20 stream
1:44:21 where you were focusing on more of the
1:44:23 stage one so i think
1:44:24 just to set the scene i mean based on
1:44:27 the original discussion that you had i
1:44:30 i'm pretty much happy with you know
1:44:33 accepting that there has to be something
1:44:34 necessary
1:44:36 um as as the cause
1:44:39 um or the reason for why everything
1:44:42 exists so
1:44:43 i'm pretty much happy with stage one
1:44:47 um i've not hired all of the arguments
1:44:49 for
1:44:50 your arguments for step two um
1:44:53 i suppose just from a general standpoint
1:44:56 and
1:44:57 and you know previous thoughts i've had
1:45:00 on this
1:45:00 particular question i don't negate the
1:45:03 existence of god
1:45:04 or or discount it for any uh
1:45:07 reason um i think it's
1:45:10 rational to believe that a god is
1:45:12 possible
1:45:13 um but i also think other possibilities
1:45:16 are rational
1:45:18 um and i think we kind of have a an
1:45:21 uh epistemological problem trying to get
1:45:24 to the bottom of
1:45:25 ontological conclusions because we just
1:45:28 we're just bound by that distinction
1:45:31 between
1:45:31 epistemology and ontology so i think
1:45:34 we're always going to have a problem
1:45:36 trying to arrive at um
1:45:40 suitable conclusions that we can be
1:45:42 happy with
1:45:43 all we can do is get to approximations
1:45:46 because of the the other ontological
1:45:49 possibilities that are out there
1:45:51 such as deism pantheism naturalistic
1:45:54 pantheism
1:45:55 pan um psychicism evil god
1:45:58 you know there's many different um
1:46:01 possibilities on an ontological level
1:46:03 that could be the answer yeah so carlos
1:46:06 all we want to do is we
1:46:08 at this moment in time we want to say
1:46:09 can we go from a
1:46:11 necessary being yeah being here meaning
1:46:14 foundation to reality
1:46:16 a necessary being to a necessary being
1:46:19 that has conscious
1:46:20 and chose to create yeah so that's what
1:46:22 we're trying to do
1:46:23 so from what i understand what you're
1:46:25 saying is you are agnostic
1:46:27 as to the nature of the necessary being
1:46:29 you believe a necessary foundation
1:46:31 to reality exists but you're agnostic as
1:46:34 to whether it
1:46:35 is naturalistic or mechanistic
1:46:38 or whether it is a willful agent what
1:46:41 these would call god
1:46:43 yeah yeah yeah pretty much and i think
1:46:45 with um you know without any
1:46:47 evidence to distinguish between the many
1:46:49 possibilities
1:46:50 um it's going to be difficult to try and
1:46:53 come to
1:46:54 a decision as to what you know you have
1:46:56 to be able to rule out the other
1:46:58 possibilities with your explanations i
1:47:00 think yeah so carlos really quickly uh
1:47:03 why did you come to the conclusion of a
1:47:05 necessary being in the first place
1:47:06 very very like very briefly um
1:47:10 i mean i think the cosmological argument
1:47:13 is probably
1:47:13 among the best um types of arguments in
1:47:17 the contingency argument
1:47:18 as well i think these arguments work
1:47:21 very well from a logical point of view
1:47:23 but obviously we're we're using like
1:47:26 empirical knowledge to try and come to
1:47:30 ontological conclusions so i don't think
1:47:32 that we can even
1:47:35 it we can't yes yes i accept that
1:47:37 there's a necessary
1:47:39 uh existence for everything else to
1:47:41 exist
1:47:42 um it's just that we can't
1:47:46 be settled on those ontological
1:47:48 conclusions and
1:47:50 unless we have evidence from an
1:47:53 ontological tier
1:47:54 of knowledge but what we can say
1:47:58 uh what what you are saying it seems to
1:48:00 me is
1:48:01 is that okay whatever begins to exist as
1:48:03 a cause the universe began to exist
1:48:05 therefore the universe has a cause and
1:48:07 infinite regress is an impossibility
1:48:09 therefore there must be something which
1:48:10 is
1:48:11 independent yeah eternal that caused
1:48:15 contingent limited things to exist
1:48:18 that's one formulation of the argument
1:48:20 yeah
1:48:21 so we are saying something about we are
1:48:23 giving some sort of ontology to this
1:48:25 necessary being we're saying
1:48:27 it's not caused it's independent
1:48:31 it's eternal and it had the power to
1:48:33 create
1:48:34 these are the things that we're coming
1:48:35 to to the as the
1:48:37 as the logical entailment of the
1:48:40 argument
1:48:41 yeah so there are positive things that
1:48:43 we are saying about
1:48:44 the ontology the being of this necessary
1:48:47 being here
1:48:50 so you know we are saying these things
1:48:51 and the next question is is that
1:48:53 okay using the same
1:48:56 basically the same premises of how we
1:48:58 came to a necessary being we're going to
1:49:00 use the same premises and say
1:49:02 well this necessary being the best
1:49:04 explanation or the only explanation
1:49:06 is to assign a will yeah intentionality
1:49:09 and the reason why i would say that is
1:49:11 what i said to justin earlier
1:49:13 i don't know if you heard that
1:49:14 conversation with justin but i said to
1:49:16 him that look if you've got everything
1:49:18 necessary
1:49:19 for an effect to take place so if
1:49:21 everything necessary in the cause
1:49:23 exists to cause an effect and the cause
1:49:27 itself
1:49:28 is not uh you know it's for it you know
1:49:31 has no choice but to cause
1:49:34 then what you're gonna have you're gonna
1:49:35 have an effect isn't it does that make
1:49:36 sense carlos
1:49:38 yeah in a deterministic way yeah now if
1:49:40 the cause is eternal
1:49:43 what would the effect be
1:49:46 if the cause was eternal yeah so when
1:49:49 you talk about the cause you mean the
1:49:50 necessary existence
1:49:52 yeah yeah so everything necessary for
1:49:54 this necessary existence to cause its
1:49:57 effect
1:49:58 exists because it's independent there's
1:50:01 nothing external to it
1:50:03 so if this eternal cause exists
1:50:06 and it did not and it was compelled to
1:50:08 create
1:50:10 yeah then the effect
1:50:13 would be what would it be temporal or
1:50:16 eternal
1:50:18 um would it be temporal or eternal i'd
1:50:22 say
1:50:23 meaning would you have a beginning or
1:50:24 would it always exist i think well
1:50:27 there's a there's a possibility
1:50:29 it could be either um depending on the
1:50:31 nature
1:50:32 of the necessary existence so the
1:50:35 necessary existence
1:50:36 has to cause it cannot not
1:50:39 cause is that what you believe is it
1:50:43 no no i'm saying from this i'm using
1:50:45 this as an
1:50:46 an argument to say that if we accept
1:50:50 a necessary being does not have a will
1:50:53 meaning it was compelled to to have the
1:50:55 effect
1:50:56 or cause the effect then for the cause
1:50:59 to exist
1:51:00 you would have the effects yeah
1:51:03 it wouldn't necessitate the
1:51:07 yeah now if the cause is eternal
1:51:10 the effect would have to also be eternal
1:51:13 yeah i can see where you're going with
1:51:15 that yeah yeah so
1:51:17 in the in the argument you've already
1:51:19 accepted
1:51:20 which is actually an infinite regress of
1:51:23 contingent limited beings is impossible
1:51:25 then we've accepted that contingent
1:51:28 beings
1:51:29 which also includes the universe had a
1:51:31 beginning to its existence
1:51:34 it didn't always exist
1:51:37 yeah but i mean when we when we say that
1:51:40 we're only talking about our
1:51:41 our space and our time and our matter
1:51:44 within that
1:51:45 so anything else could be subject to
1:51:48 different laws
1:51:49 yeah but that's why carlos that's why i
1:51:51 asked you the question why did you come
1:51:53 to the conclusion of a necessary being
1:51:55 and you said well you know and we went
1:51:56 through the very briefly the
1:51:58 cosmological argument the contingency
1:52:00 argument because both these arguments
1:52:02 they're not necessarily talking about
1:52:04 different types of contingency they're
1:52:06 saying all contingent being needs a
1:52:08 necessary foundation
1:52:09 the necessary foundation is the cause of
1:52:13 all contingent beings
1:52:14 but all contingent beings had a
1:52:16 beginning to their existence
1:52:20 so that's what that's what you've agreed
1:52:21 with you've agreed that contingent
1:52:22 beings
1:52:23 clues the universe had a beginning
1:52:26 there's something
1:52:27 outside of contingent beings that is the
1:52:29 cause which did not have a beginning is
1:52:31 eternal
1:52:33 this eternal cause yeah exists
1:52:37 but not an eternal effect
1:52:42 right temporal yeah yeah it's temporal
1:52:45 that's right
1:52:46 so on what basis can you say
1:52:50 that the eternal cause is necessitated
1:52:54 to cause an effect when the effect is
1:52:57 not
1:52:58 necessitated in this instance
1:53:03 the effect did not have to exist
1:53:07 the cause did not have to cause
1:53:10 the effect that's what we're coming to
1:53:12 in terms of our observation
1:53:13 of a temporal contingent uh universal
1:53:17 existence the cause does not have to
1:53:21 cause
1:53:23 if it depends
1:53:31 yeah i don't know it's difficult because
1:53:35 the whole concept of time becomes very
1:53:38 difficult when you're talking about
1:53:39 eternal things
1:53:40 things that are contingent because
1:53:42 obviously if you believe
1:53:45 that god exists and god is eternal
1:53:48 then you believe in like in it like in
1:53:50 essentially an infinite past
1:53:53 and then then that becomes then that's
1:53:56 sort of
1:53:57 goes outside of our understanding of
1:53:58 what time actually is
1:54:01 so when you're saying that yeah i've
1:54:04 gone so when you're saying no i was
1:54:05 going to
1:54:06 i was going to say color so i think we
1:54:08 the point being is this is that
1:54:10 you could still say we we sort of agreed
1:54:12 upon certain
1:54:13 key premises of the argument that an
1:54:16 infinite regress
1:54:17 is impossible yeah so there can't be an
1:54:20 eternal
1:54:21 amount of events of limited things
1:54:24 you know in this chain of series that's
1:54:26 impossible
1:54:27 there's an eternal cause that started
1:54:30 a chain of events yeah now if you're
1:54:34 like i said the other way to arg the
1:54:36 other way would be to say okay
1:54:38 well the eternal cause was compelled to
1:54:41 cause so therefore
1:54:43 it had to uh cause its effects
1:54:46 so the effect would have to be eternal
1:54:49 yeah so that's
1:54:50 just the other way of arguing it that's
1:54:52 what you would say okay so therefore
1:54:54 the universe and contingent things are
1:54:56 eternal in infinite regresses
1:54:58 exists that explains or that
1:55:01 that that allows us to be in this
1:55:04 agnostic position
1:55:06 of saying well is the uh nesso being a
1:55:09 creator of mechanical force
1:55:10 but i'm saying we're not allowed to be
1:55:12 in agnostic position
1:55:13 because we've already accepted an
1:55:15 infinite regress of contingent beings is
1:55:17 impossible
1:55:18 yeah so it had a beginning there's a
1:55:20 beginning in the chain
1:55:22 yeah which therefore means it's not
1:55:24 eternal
1:55:26 what however you want to frame time
1:55:28 relational idealistic
1:55:30 objective you how however you want to
1:55:31 frame time it had a beginning
1:55:34 yeah whereas this cause did not have a
1:55:36 beginning
1:55:37 therefore the cause was not compelled to
1:55:41 cause the effect
1:55:44 all right okay that's what we observe
1:55:47 so like i said we can we're already
1:55:49 making ontological
1:55:50 uh you know positive claims about the
1:55:53 ontology of this necessary being that
1:55:54 it's eternal that it's
1:55:56 independent nothing external to it that
1:55:59 it caused
1:56:00 and created contingent things we're
1:56:02 already making that and i'm saying the
1:56:03 other thing that we can make
1:56:05 as a another property is that the cause
1:56:08 is necessary being
1:56:09 is not compelled to create
1:56:13 which means it chose to create that's
1:56:16 the other attribute and property would
1:56:18 uh attribute to the necessary being this
1:56:20 doesn't necessarily mean that therefore
1:56:22 you need to make a muslim carlos
1:56:24 i'm not saying that all i'm saying is
1:56:27 that it
1:56:27 takes you from just being a simple
1:56:30 agnostic
1:56:31 atheist to somebody who would say that
1:56:33 actually theism
1:56:35 has a strong irrational foundation for
1:56:38 it
1:56:38 yeah in fact i don't know if you can go
1:56:42 straight to theism though because you've
1:56:43 still got deism
1:56:45 well if you if you want deism yeah you
1:56:48 could
1:56:49 argue for deism yeah but you're not
1:56:51 arguing for atheism anymore
1:56:57 yeah go for it now i was just going to
1:57:00 say
1:57:01 i mean what's the dichotomy that you're
1:57:03 drawing between deism and theism
1:57:08 um well obviously with deism it's to
1:57:11 suggest that god
1:57:12 exists but either doesn't
1:57:15 care or doesn't intervene with
1:57:19 the natural world or or human beings or
1:57:22 anything like that that's the major
1:57:24 distinction so
1:57:25 that's what i'm saying you can you
1:57:26 couldn't jump from the arguments that
1:57:28 you've made to
1:57:29 straight to theism you'd need a few more
1:57:31 steps yeah we just mean that god exists
1:57:33 yeah but i i would even say that it is
1:57:36 possible
1:57:36 if we're saying that these things are
1:57:38 dependent upon god
1:57:40 that they're permanent dependent they
1:57:41 never become independent from him and so
1:57:43 theism itself as this position that god
1:57:46 creates things
1:57:47 and then leads things to kind of go on
1:57:49 without him
1:57:50 um is to suggest these things become
1:57:53 independent in a way
1:57:54 and i think we've give good arguments to
1:57:56 suggest that this is absurd that these
1:57:57 things are
1:57:58 dependent upon the thing that that
1:58:00 necessary being
1:58:01 and so if you're willing to
1:58:05 attribute at least a will um to this
1:58:08 necessary being
1:58:10 and we can get to the conclusion that
1:58:12 it's consistently
1:58:14 um giving everything that it has
1:58:17 to it and sustaining all things
1:58:20 constantly
1:58:20 during their existence bringing things
1:58:23 into being
1:58:24 taking them out of being then there is
1:58:26 this constant
1:58:28 um interaction between this necessary
1:58:31 being and the things that it's creating
1:58:32 and sustaining and so it's it becomes
1:58:36 i would say it ends up being a very
1:58:38 difficult position to sort of sustain
1:58:40 for the deist at this point if you're if
1:58:43 that is obviously you're willing to
1:58:46 concede on the points that uh
1:58:48 the all dependent things are dependent
1:58:50 on the necessary being
1:58:52 and they are constantly dependent upon
1:58:54 him or or
1:58:55 it if you if you don't want to go as far
1:58:57 as seeing him um
1:58:59 so you know and in that case they would
1:59:00 need to be extra arguments
1:59:02 on behalf of the deist in order to lead
1:59:05 us to their conclusion rather than the
1:59:06 theistic one
1:59:07 that is this bill this being that is
1:59:10 necessary has a will
1:59:12 and is constantly sustaining um that you
1:59:15 can
1:59:16 infer or tie this notion of constant
1:59:18 interaction or care
1:59:20 uh if you want to use that um although
1:59:21 it's obviously in this case would be
1:59:23 used in a quite a loose term
1:59:25 um yeah see see carla carlos the issue
1:59:28 is this is that
1:59:29 in order to adopt the position of theism
1:59:32 yeah the first first discussion has to
1:59:34 be is there necessary being does the
1:59:35 necessary being have to exist
1:59:37 the next question then becomes is this
1:59:40 necessary being is it does it have a
1:59:41 will
1:59:42 yeah does it does it choose to create
1:59:44 did it have intentionality
1:59:45 and then we can go and move to a
1:59:47 discussion of does it have
1:59:49 actuality you know does it is this
1:59:52 theistic
1:59:53 god does it have presence within the
1:59:54 universe and within our lives
1:59:56 but i'm just saying is that at what
1:59:58 position do you think you are in in
1:59:59 terms of those three
2:00:06 sorry carl i don't know if colossal
2:00:08 you're on mute if you can yeah you're
2:00:10 sorry
2:00:20 yeah this is where we were trying to get
2:00:21 to and then obviously the third
2:00:23 uh position would be this god
2:00:26 intervenes within the universe now all
2:00:28 we're trying to do is get to
2:00:29 from number one to number two at this
2:00:31 moment in time
2:00:34 yeah um to say it has a will um
2:00:37 yeah it wasn't compelled it wasn't
2:00:40 forced to create because if it was
2:00:41 forced
2:00:42 then the universe essay then the
2:00:44 contingent beings would be eternal
2:00:47 so you're saying in that case that um if
2:00:50 god
2:00:50 the god that you believe in does exist
2:00:52 that he could
2:00:54 have existed in the way that you
2:00:57 understand him
2:00:58 but chosen not to create our universe
2:01:02 is that what you're saying yeah yeah
2:01:05 could have chosen
2:01:06 created a different universe could not
2:01:08 didn't have to create the universe
2:01:09 because if the cause if the cause is
2:01:11 some kind of mechanistic
2:01:13 deterministic naturalistic thing
2:01:16 uh then i mean how do you explain how
2:01:19 you get the temporal effect
2:01:21 from the eternal cause that's the whole
2:01:23 question
2:01:25 right i see i mean and even if you went
2:01:28 with
2:01:28 some type of quantum fluctuation and
2:01:31 indeterminist
2:01:32 in deterministic thing it still would
2:01:34 have happened even if it happens at a
2:01:36 probability
2:01:37 it still would have happened uh
2:01:40 eternally
2:01:42 mm-hmm you mean is that
2:01:45 somebody explained that how do you
2:01:46 explain that change
2:01:49 even in the if if it's a if we're
2:01:51 looking at a naturalistic
2:01:53 explanation whether it's deterministic
2:01:56 or indeterministic i still don't see how
2:01:59 either one would solve the problem
2:02:02 of an eternal effect uh cause
2:02:05 producing a temporal effect it doesn't
2:02:08 seem to add up
2:02:10 so so what we observe is
2:02:14 our universe which we agree is temporal
2:02:16 right
2:02:17 yes yeah but we don't
2:02:21 have knowledge of anything outside of
2:02:23 our time
2:02:24 space or anything like that which so we
2:02:28 don't know if
2:02:29 that is temporal or not so what i'm
2:02:31 saying is that
2:02:32 there's potentially other steps that
2:02:34 we're missing out and we're jumping
2:02:36 straight
2:02:37 from um you know an eternal
2:02:41 creator that where nothing else outside
2:02:44 of it exists
2:02:48 do you think it could be matter this
2:02:50 other thing that we're
2:02:52 we're thinking of um potentially yeah
2:02:56 so you think you think matter could
2:02:59 exist
2:03:00 outside of time and space
2:03:04 not our matter but other matter yeah
2:03:07 i mean but then in that case what is
2:03:10 this i mean we
2:03:11 other matter i don't even know what that
2:03:13 would look like what that
2:03:15 even would mean define matter what do
2:03:18 you mean by mata exactly
2:03:20 because if you're saying not our matter
2:03:22 and then moving it to this sort of
2:03:24 a temporal substance
2:03:27 what is it that it shares with what
2:03:30 you're referring to is our matter so
2:03:32 that you can still refer to the same
2:03:34 concept
2:03:36 so i mean obviously science science
2:03:39 scientists
2:03:40 postulate a possibility of a multiverse
2:03:45 so that would be an example of matter
2:03:47 that exists outside of our time yeah but
2:03:49 even that
2:03:49 that matter that they postulate it's not
2:03:52 some like
2:03:53 radically different concept it's just
2:03:56 the existence of other
2:03:57 you possible universes so but
2:04:00 but and that's what i think sharif was
2:04:03 trying to point out in the beginning or
2:04:04 question
2:04:05 how did you get to the place from the
2:04:07 necessary being to begin with
2:04:10 because now when we're dealing with the
2:04:12 second stage
2:04:13 of the cosmological arguments i feel
2:04:15 like we're moving
2:04:16 back to the first stage of how we got
2:04:19 there to begin with
2:04:21 and if you already conceded on that i
2:04:24 don't see how when we make the
2:04:26 secondary points you're moving back to
2:04:29 considering
2:04:30 you know the the sort of preliminary
2:04:33 points that got us here
2:04:34 that's that's the problem i see in this
2:04:36 discussion if i could say something this
2:04:39 thing about
2:04:39 matter some different kind of matter
2:04:42 right
2:04:43 i mean first of all i mean that's that's
2:04:44 very vague so basically you're saying
2:04:47 something right what is this other kind
2:04:51 of matter well
2:04:52 it could be god i'm not saying god is
2:04:53 made out of matter what i'm saying is
2:04:55 you're basically it's very vague to the
2:04:57 extent that it could
2:04:58 basically uh the what your this
2:05:00 definition you're postulating could
2:05:02 encompass any kind of thing out there so
2:05:05 we
2:05:06 you're in agreement with us that there
2:05:07 is something that is necessary
2:05:09 and you're saying that nature of this
2:05:11 necessary thing as far as its substance
2:05:14 is concerned is a mystery because i mean
2:05:17 saying some other kind of matter is as
2:05:19 good as saying it's something that
2:05:20 we don't know right uh i mean i don't
2:05:23 know how you'd label it matter
2:05:24 if it's completely unlike th what we
2:05:27 know as matter
2:05:28 right so what you would say is that it's
2:05:30 something else that's natural
2:05:32 and then we would ask the same kind of
2:05:34 questions about this
2:05:35 natural thing right that sharif was just
2:05:39 asking and that we've been asking this
2:05:41 whole stream
2:05:42 about the nature of this what you call a
2:05:46 natural thing
2:05:47 and the causal capacity that it has to
2:05:50 contain
2:05:51 to to create or to cause a contingent
2:05:54 world
2:05:56 world will ask the exact same questions
2:05:59 the eternal
2:06:00 cause and the the temporal effect we'll
2:06:02 ask about the faculty of will and how it
2:06:05 causelessly causes or
2:06:06 just doesn't necessarily mechanistically
2:06:09 or deterministically cause
2:06:10 we'll ask about the nature of the
2:06:12 contingent world and how the property
2:06:14 the properties that we find in the
2:06:16 contingent world are very arbitrary in
2:06:18 the sense that you know
2:06:19 uh electrons and protons and stuff have
2:06:21 certain charges and everything is very
2:06:24 you know arbitrary arbitrarily limited
2:06:26 in terms of its properties and it's in a
2:06:28 very specific way it's extremely
2:06:30 contingent that it
2:06:31 it's really shouting for some kind of an
2:06:33 explanation so when we say that that's
2:06:34 the nature of the contingent world
2:06:36 and there is a necessary thing that
2:06:38 actualized it
2:06:39 and there is an infinite number of
2:06:41 possibilities that could have been
2:06:42 actualized
2:06:43 we can say that we can infer some aspect
2:06:46 of
2:06:47 of or some faculty of choice there too
2:06:49 so what we're doing is we're agreeing
2:06:51 that there is a cause there is something
2:06:52 necessary
2:06:53 and you're agreeing with us what we are
2:06:56 doing is that we are asking
2:06:58 further questions about this necessary
2:07:00 thing you're saying that there could be
2:07:02 other possibilities that we don't know
2:07:04 about but
2:07:04 you could say the same about everything
2:07:06 you could say the same about scientific
2:07:07 theories like the theory of evolution
2:07:09 it could be possible that there are
2:07:10 other explanations that we don't have
2:07:12 access to right now
2:07:14 but what we're doing is we're working
2:07:15 with what we have and we're making an
2:07:17 inference to the best explanation
2:07:19 in in the weak sense of the argument or
2:07:21 a deductive argument in the stronger
2:07:23 sense
2:07:24 but the the more compelling aspect here
2:07:26 is is
2:07:27 you know as opposed to scientific
2:07:29 theories and inductive
2:07:30 uh arguments what we're saying is that
2:07:33 this
2:07:34 data set that we're working with
2:07:35 couldn't possibly change
2:07:37 in the sense that as far as science can
2:07:39 take you
2:07:40 your epistemic standpoint is going to be
2:07:44 the same with regard to the
2:07:45 philosophical questions you ask
2:07:47 about these ultimate explanations of
2:07:50 this contingent world
2:07:51 they're not going to change in that
2:07:52 sense because you're limited by your
2:07:54 observation
2:07:55 so so what we're doing is we're we're
2:07:57 saying that this necessary thing that we
2:07:58 all agree exists
2:08:00 we're saying that we can use the same
2:08:02 reason that we
2:08:03 apply to our you know
2:08:07 inspection of the world in general we
2:08:10 can be consistent in asking similar
2:08:12 questions about it
2:08:13 and we can reasonably come to certain
2:08:15 conclusions
2:08:16 even if in the weaker sense it's in uh
2:08:19 or
2:08:19 generally it's it's it's in a within a
2:08:22 fallibilistic
2:08:23 paradigm in the sense that okay we could
2:08:25 be wrong fine but
2:08:26 i mean that's not really news because we
2:08:28 could be wrong about anything
2:08:29 in in a strict epistemic sense right but
2:08:33 are the explanations good are the
2:08:35 arguments good enough to at least
2:08:37 at least say that there is a rational
2:08:40 basis there is a rational foundation for
2:08:42 reality in the sense that this
2:08:44 this the way i'm thinking right now this
2:08:46 line of reasoning i'm giving you
2:08:48 i think you should at least acknowledge
2:08:50 that
2:08:51 i can be reasonable in reaching these
2:08:53 kinds of conclusions from my way of
2:08:54 thinking and from deriving these more
2:08:56 generalized principles from from from
2:08:59 the
2:09:00 the basic epistemology that we use as a
2:09:02 whole so i think that's that's the
2:09:04 broad point here yeah i think it's i'm
2:09:07 not saying
2:09:07 yeah i mean i definitely think it's a
2:09:09 rational
2:09:11 pathway that you're taking i just think
2:09:13 the whole discussion
2:09:15 is just only going to bring us to
2:09:16 approximations it's not
2:09:18 going to even if we think we're using
2:09:21 rational
2:09:22 um logic here then it's not necessarily
2:09:25 going to give us
2:09:26 answers that we can be certain about
2:09:29 and you know stop looking for the other
2:09:31 why are you looking for certainty
2:09:33 what what other domain of knowledge do
2:09:35 you uh
2:09:36 look for certainty in like science do we
2:09:38 do we speak with certainty when it comes
2:09:40 to scientific knowledge
2:09:42 no we can't do it okay so that's the
2:09:44 point so so
2:09:45 why are you willing to accept knowledge
2:09:47 in general on a follow unfollow
2:09:49 ballistic grounds but when it comes to
2:09:51 these questions we're asking about
2:09:52 ultimate explanations
2:09:54 you're saying no we have to be 100
2:09:55 certain yeah because
2:09:57 on when we're talking about ontology you
2:09:59 need evidence
2:10:01 from that tier of knowledge
2:10:04 to even be able to have a rational
2:10:08 discussion i mean
2:10:09 if we said like the matrix was that
2:10:12 third domain that
2:10:14 yeah sort of necessary existence
2:10:17 uh the the real world as it were if we
2:10:20 were like like i don't know if you've
2:10:22 seen the film but if if we were
2:10:24 somehow transported to the real world
2:10:26 from
2:10:27 this world that would we would now be in
2:10:30 the realm of evidence from that tear
2:10:33 but we know we we're locked in
2:10:36 our reality so we do have that
2:10:39 fundamental problem
2:10:41 yeah but you're so right now you're
2:10:43 talking about you're talking about our
2:10:45 bubble of experience but then we're
2:10:46 going to disagree on what that bubble is
2:10:48 so for example a solipsist would say
2:10:50 that his bubble of experience is only
2:10:52 his first person perspective and
2:10:54 everything you say about the external
2:10:55 world
2:10:56 is just meaningless gibberish right and
2:10:59 then that bubbles and keep expanding
2:11:01 you're going to say someone else is
2:11:02 going to say no it's our immediate
2:11:03 experience and we can't even
2:11:05 make inferences to best explanations
2:11:07 about unobservable things
2:11:08 someone else is telling you he's going
2:11:09 to tell you no no we can make inferences
2:11:11 but let's keep it within the bubble of
2:11:12 our universe
2:11:13 and then we're going to ask questions
2:11:14 but what do we mean by our universe okay
2:11:16 let's talk about the cosmos
2:11:17 and then someone else is going to say
2:11:18 reality but what is reality
2:11:21 so so we're going to disagree on what
2:11:23 really constitutes this bubble of
2:11:24 experience we're talking about and
2:11:26 what i would say is that there's really
2:11:27 no difference you're just always making
2:11:29 claims about
2:11:30 reality as a whole and you do make
2:11:32 inferences from the observable to the
2:11:34 unobservable all the time
2:11:36 so i don't know why there isn't a very
2:11:39 s like why why is there this exception
2:11:42 when it comes
2:11:42 to the ultimate grounding of reality
2:11:46 um because you know when we're talking
2:11:49 about epistemology we're either
2:11:51 locked in our imagination and we can
2:11:54 come up with all sorts of
2:11:56 explanations for reality and the true
2:11:58 nature of reality
2:12:00 we can then go to the second tier and
2:12:02 use epistemology we can use empirical
2:12:05 data to um back up
2:12:08 what our original thoughts were in the
2:12:10 first tier but then
2:12:12 when we go and try to get to this third
2:12:13 tier of knowledge
2:12:15 ontology it you're always working from
2:12:18 the bottom up
2:12:19 perspective you're always trying but
2:12:21 carlos you already agreed
2:12:23 you we this is why at the beginning we
2:12:26 we mentioned certain points
2:12:27 you already agree you've already gone
2:12:29 from contingent realities to a necessary
2:12:31 reality
2:12:32 so we're already talking about something
2:12:34 that's outside of
2:12:35 quote-unquote the empirical realm yeah
2:12:37 what we can experience
2:12:39 so we've already agreed me and you
2:12:40 agreed upon that you know this is what
2:12:42 we agreed upon
2:12:43 yeah i mean i was going to ask you that
2:12:44 question because yeah because you
2:12:46 arrived at something necessary
2:12:48 through non supposedly non-empirical
2:12:50 means so you agree with sharif on that
2:12:53 yeah yeah but i did start off by saying
2:12:56 that it's just an approximation
2:12:57 um just because of our um you know
2:13:01 just limitations on an epistemological
2:13:03 level
2:13:04 so even though i accept it it
2:13:07 it it makes complete rational sense and
2:13:10 i'm happy to
2:13:11 go with that it is just an approximation
2:13:13 and i'm still open to revision
2:13:15 okay right i mean just bringing it back
2:13:18 to the will
2:13:20 question i mean if we said that um
2:13:23 the necessary existence or necessary
2:13:26 being
2:13:26 isn't conscious it's some form of
2:13:29 naturalistic pantheo
2:13:31 pantheism would you and in that scenario
2:13:35 the the fact that contingent things that
2:13:38 exist came about
2:13:40 randomly for argument's sake so it could
2:13:43 or could not have come
2:13:44 about do you still class that as a will
2:13:47 in the same way that you've been talking
2:13:50 no because naturalistic
2:13:51 isn't it go ahead i mean even like we
2:13:54 explain
2:13:55 i was trying to explain earlier about
2:13:57 the if it's a naturalistic explanation
2:14:00 that's indeterministic
2:14:02 you still have the same problem of
2:14:03 explaining how you get the temporal
2:14:05 effect
2:14:06 from the eternal cause
2:14:10 i mean you still i don't see how
2:14:12 indeterminism would solve that problem
2:14:15 from a naturalistic perspective because
2:14:18 even if it's indeterministic in the
2:14:20 sense that it happens
2:14:22 uh with a probability it still is
2:14:25 inevitable
2:14:26 to happen nonetheless in that sense
2:14:29 one of those probabilities is going to
2:14:31 happen
2:14:33 so how do you determine that god isn't
2:14:35 deterministic in the same way
2:14:38 well because god has a will whereas
2:14:40 nature doesn't
2:14:42 or at least how are you determining that
2:14:45 what's that because because contingent
2:14:47 beings began to exist
2:14:49 it it if we accept that if x causes y
2:14:52 and x exists y exists
2:14:54 if x is eternal then y would be eternal
2:14:58 yeah if x exists that causes y
2:15:01 but x exists but y doesn't exist
2:15:05 then it means that x was not compelled
2:15:07 to cause y
2:15:10 right is that is that your justification
2:15:12 for saying that necessary existence has
2:15:14 a consciousness yeah that's one of the
2:15:18 explanations one of the
2:15:19 one of the uh evidences that we're using
2:15:22 here
2:15:23 we're using four different evidences
2:15:26 yeah but one of those
2:15:27 evidences all i'm doing carlos is using
2:15:30 your premises to your arguments that
2:15:33 you've come to the conclusion of a
2:15:35 necessary being
2:15:36 yeah i've not gone outside of that and
2:15:38 i'm saying based on those
2:15:40 arguments that you already hold on to
2:15:42 whether it's
2:15:43 you know good explanation rational
2:15:45 expert whatever it is
2:15:47 the logical entailment of that would
2:15:49 come to the conclusion
2:15:51 that the necessary being was not forced
2:15:54 or compelled to create by some
2:15:57 mechanistic
2:15:58 force yeah because if it did
2:16:01 then the universe and contingent beings
2:16:04 would be
2:16:05 infinite or eternal and therefore there
2:16:07 would be an
2:16:08 infinite regression or an infinite sum
2:16:10 of
2:16:11 events yeah what whatever you know what
2:16:13 if what i find very interesting
2:16:15 sharif and and carlos is that this this
2:16:19 fact that
2:16:19 atheists normally uh um object to
2:16:22 it the the real sticking point is
2:16:24 whether this necessary foundation has
2:16:26 a consciousness or a will right this is
2:16:29 this is really the main point
2:16:31 what's really interesting about this is
2:16:32 that even within our own experience
2:16:34 we can't directly observe these things
2:16:36 and we make inferences about them all
2:16:38 the time
2:16:39 it's it's it's our inner most human
2:16:42 experience
2:16:42 this first person perspective thing we
2:16:45 call consciousness
2:16:46 yet we cannot directly observe it
2:16:51 so so for the atheist to say that i'm
2:16:54 waiting for
2:16:55 empirical evidence to justify the claim
2:16:58 that this necessary foundation
2:17:00 is conscious and i can't make an
2:17:02 inference about it
2:17:03 it's it's it's kind it's kind of funny
2:17:05 because then we come back here to our
2:17:07 reality and you're a very
2:17:08 immediate experience you couldn't
2:17:10 possibly
2:17:12 reduce and deconstruct this phenomenon
2:17:15 of consciousness
2:17:16 and show me how it works yet when i make
2:17:20 a similar inference about the necessary
2:17:23 foundation of reality and give you
2:17:25 similar reasons in the way i infer its
2:17:28 will and its consciousness to the way we
2:17:30 always do infer wills and consciousness
2:17:33 about beings around us
2:17:34 somehow there is a problem why because i
2:17:37 can't see it
2:17:38 well you are already agree it exists so
2:17:40 forget about like the substance of it or
2:17:42 how it works or any of that because we
2:17:44 aren't making any specific claims about
2:17:46 that
2:17:46 we're saying that something exists and
2:17:49 in the same way i infer a will and a
2:17:51 consciousness with regard to you
2:17:54 i do the same with regard to this
2:17:55 necessary foundation there's literally
2:17:57 no difference
2:17:58 and nothing about me observing this
2:18:01 necessary foundation
2:18:02 will change anything about that
2:18:04 inference because we know there are
2:18:06 serious discussions right now among
2:18:07 scientists and philosophers about pan
2:18:09 psychism they're trying to tell you that
2:18:11 everything around you is conscious
2:18:13 so the whole topic of what constitutes
2:18:15 consciousness
2:18:16 isn't exactly that straightforward
2:18:18 anyway and you have to sort of
2:18:19 philosophize about it
2:18:21 so if we make a con consistent inference
2:18:23 from our immediate experience about the
2:18:25 way
2:18:25 consciousness and free will works and
2:18:27 the way intentionality works
2:18:29 to this necessary foundation without
2:18:31 necessarily
2:18:32 having to you know examine it directly
2:18:37 we're not really doing anything
2:18:39 different than what we do within our you
2:18:40 know
2:18:41 immediate experience in day to day lives
2:18:43 even at a very sophisticated
2:18:45 philosophical and scientific level
2:18:47 yeah to talk about examining it um sort
2:18:50 of i guess
2:18:50 misunderstands what consciousness is
2:18:52 exactly um
2:18:54 because again like as you were saying
2:18:55 there how do we
2:18:57 examine consciousness necessarily even
2:18:59 when we're talking about ourselves this
2:19:00 is a
2:19:01 proper pickle subject it was only the
2:19:03 other day i was watching
2:19:04 um quantum biology or quantum physics in
2:19:08 biology like a stream
2:19:10 um and they the second they get onto the
2:19:12 topic of consciousness on the
2:19:14 onto the the topic of um of life
2:19:18 they they start alluding to these funny
2:19:20 words like oh you know it's like magic
2:19:22 to us oh it's
2:19:22 uh let's not go there or you know they
2:19:25 they make references to these
2:19:27 um these issues when it comes to to
2:19:29 talking about what consciousness
2:19:31 is exactly um and so
2:19:34 like i don't know how we would expect
2:19:38 to apply this method if it doesn't even
2:19:40 apply very well here when we're talking
2:19:42 about us
2:19:43 yeah we all have this intuitive
2:19:44 intuitive understanding of what
2:19:46 consciousness is um
2:19:48 or intentionality like how um
2:19:52 we engage with things i guess and
2:19:55 trying to then yeah so so i was going to
2:19:58 ask carla
2:19:59 how how do you how would you normally
2:20:03 infer somebody's has intentionality
2:20:07 because maybe that's what will help
2:20:08 explain what through their actions
2:20:10 if we can try and wrap up as well
2:20:12 because um we're moving on to 20 minutes
2:20:14 now we've got a few three more
2:20:16 guests we want to try and get on as well
2:20:18 yeah sure so
2:20:20 what yourself what yourself and abdul
2:20:21 rahman mentioned is he said that look
2:20:24 it's not just through their actions is
2:20:25 it for example
2:20:27 if you know you've got that test where
2:20:29 you put the hammer to the knee
2:20:31 and your knee you know automatically
2:20:33 shoots up
2:20:34 it's a reflex test that the doctors do
2:20:37 to check your reflexes
2:20:39 you're just looking at me like confused
2:20:41 and he's thinking what's he talking
2:20:42 about
2:20:49 you know the little little hammer that
2:20:51 the doctor does when he taps your knee
2:20:53 and your knee moves
2:20:55 i was doing it with my daughter the
2:20:56 other day but she goes in with a hammer
2:20:58 like an absolute maniac
2:21:02 so carlos it's not just action
2:21:06 is it it's more than just action it's
2:21:09 the fact that the action that the person
2:21:11 performs or the the quonk or object
2:21:14 performs
2:21:15 has no naturalistic explanation there's
2:21:17 nothing external to it
2:21:19 like the forces of nature that can
2:21:21 explain why perform the action
2:21:24 is that is that would that be correct to
2:21:26 say that's how we understand
2:21:28 intentionality
2:21:30 okay i've gotta cool over that yeah so
2:21:34 for example if somebody if i start
2:21:35 hearing the knock on this door
2:21:37 then i know that the door's not causing
2:21:39 the knocking i know that
2:21:41 the the explanation is not contained
2:21:44 within a naturalistic framework there
2:21:46 must be somebody causing the knocking
2:21:47 behind the door
2:21:49 yeah i know the door has not always been
2:21:51 knocking if the door has always been
2:21:53 knocking i'll be thinking there's
2:21:54 something wrong with the door
2:21:56 that's why it's always making this sound
2:21:58 yeah the fact that it sometimes knocks
2:22:00 and sometimes doesn't knock
2:22:02 indicates to me some sort of
2:22:03 intentionality particularly if i cannot
2:22:05 explain it
2:22:06 within a physicalist or materialistic
2:22:09 paradigm
2:22:10 yeah so somebody knocks on that door
2:22:13 that knocking therefore for me allows me
2:22:15 to understand intentionality
2:22:18 yeah i can understand intentionality
2:22:19 there's a temporal event there is
2:22:22 something which cannot be explained by
2:22:23 the physical contingent beings
2:22:26 therefore there must be something other
2:22:28 than the physical contingent beings
2:22:30 that cause the knocking the only
2:22:31 explanation we have is something called
2:22:33 intentionality
2:22:34 that's how we understand human beings
2:22:36 are intentional and have will and
2:22:38 consciousness
2:22:39 yeah now what what ontology
2:22:43 that person who's causing the knocking
2:22:46 on the door
2:22:46 what color eyes that person has how tall
2:22:49 that person is it amazes that woman
2:22:51 i can't con i can't come to that
2:22:53 conclusion
2:22:54 just from the knocking yeah but i can
2:22:57 come to the conclusion that something
2:22:58 exists
2:22:59 something's causing the knocking and it
2:23:01 has intentionality
2:23:03 yeah and that's all we're doing when it
2:23:05 comes to the observation
2:23:07 of the universe we're looking at the
2:23:09 implication of the observed event
2:23:11 we're saying we're seeing contingent
2:23:13 beings contingent beings are not
2:23:16 eternal they don't always exist they
2:23:18 don't have to exist
2:23:19 they need an explanation outside of
2:23:21 itself the explanation is a necessary
2:23:23 being
2:23:24 and the necessary being does not have
2:23:25 any explanation outside of itself it's
2:23:27 independent
2:23:29 completely independent and it causes
2:23:33 things which don't have to exist and are
2:23:36 temporal they began to exist
2:23:39 so we're seeing the same thing we're
2:23:40 seeing intentionality
2:23:42 like the knocking on the door now other
2:23:44 properties
2:23:45 about this necessary being you know uh
2:23:49 whether you want to say it's a good god
2:23:50 all these types of these are separate
2:23:52 discussions that we can have
2:23:54 but the very least now we've come to a
2:23:55 conclusion that a necessary being
2:23:58 had intentionality had will yeah no
2:24:01 i think you made some good points as the
2:24:04 the one that
2:24:05 jake uh mentioned about the move from
2:24:08 maternal to
2:24:09 temporal um that link that's something i
2:24:13 hadn't thought about before and i will
2:24:15 go away
2:24:15 and ponder that um
2:24:18Laughter 2:24:21 i will i will have i will i will give
2:24:23 that um some time
2:24:24 and maybe come back with some forms but
2:24:26 i think i think it's a good point to
2:24:28 make and
2:24:29 uh it's something that um and that as an
2:24:32 atheist i need to think about
2:24:34 because i do i do i've always
2:24:38 as far as i've um investigated in terms
2:24:40 of this subject
2:24:42 when i look at the different
2:24:44 possibilities
2:24:46 to explain the necessary existence
2:24:49 because there are other possibilities
2:24:50 out there i think we obviously have to
2:24:52 be able to rule the other ones out
2:24:54 or show which one is is why why one is
2:24:56 superior
2:24:57 um and the way i've always looked at it
2:24:59 before is probably from like an occam's
2:25:02 razor
2:25:02 point of view whereas the one with the
2:25:04 least baggage
2:25:06 is the one that makes the most sense and
2:25:09 and obviously when we do that
2:25:10 you know naturalistic pantheism or some
2:25:12 sort of pantheism is to be preferred
2:25:14 on our no no call us i have to stop you
2:25:17 there
2:25:18 that's got more baggage and it's more
2:25:21 complex
2:25:22 than a necessary being with a will but
2:25:24 let's save that for the next stream
2:25:30 simple beings don't mean that it's just
2:25:32 literally simple
2:25:33 it means it doesn't have more complex
2:25:36 explanations more metaphysical baggage
2:25:39 to it
2:25:40 and when you start depositing an
2:25:42 infinite number of universes
2:25:44 that's no longer simple or when you
2:25:46 posit a materialistic naturalistic
2:25:48 pantheism
2:25:49 that didn't have a will but needs to but
2:25:51 doesn't have the explanatory power
2:25:53 to explain why temporal events and
2:25:55 temporal continued beings began to exist
2:25:57 even though this is eternal it's not
2:26:00 it's not
2:26:01 a simple explanation so the only the
2:26:04 simplest
2:26:05 using outcomes raise the simplest
2:26:06 explanation would be a necessary being
2:26:08 with the will
2:26:08 i know you're supposed to stop me though
2:26:10 yeah yeah because
2:26:12 this is an interesting conversation but
2:26:13 i know i know it's going to open up a
2:26:15 whole another 10 hours
2:26:17 of talking so we just need to cut it
2:26:19 next we've got another
2:26:20 three people on uh that we want to kind
2:26:22 of get on quickly insha'allah um
2:26:25 appreciate you coming on as always
2:26:26 carlos it's been a pleasure talking to
2:26:28 you
2:26:28 and uh inshallah we'll see you again on
2:26:31 a future episode
2:26:32 yeah i'll be back all right we'll
2:26:35 further this conversation
2:26:36 take care thanks now bye bye
2:26:39 okay so the next guest we've got coming
2:26:42 on is karen now
2:26:43 before we bring everyone on uh i'm gonna
2:26:46 literally set a timer
2:26:47 and there's going to be noise no butts
2:26:49 i'm going to get all tyrant on you
2:26:51 and uh i'm going to end it once we've
2:26:53 gotten to the the five minute mark
2:26:55 so the next three guests so we've got
2:26:57 karen we've got um
2:26:58 mujtaba and ha harton uh as long as
2:27:01 everything obviously goes well
2:27:03 and there's no reason to kind of kick
2:27:04 you off earlier uh
2:27:06 you've got five minutes so i'll bring
2:27:08 you on and then i'll start the timer so
2:27:09 bismillah
2:27:11 five minutes five years after one and a
2:27:14 half hour that's like i know i know so
2:27:16 i'm very sorry it's uh you know the
2:27:20 conversations have already kind of gone
2:27:21 on quite long and so
2:27:22 i don't want to be on here for 10 hours
2:27:24 i've got some of it
2:27:26 next time probably i will you know will
2:27:28 come later or something but next time
2:27:30 i'll be
2:27:31 more prepared like you know you know i
2:27:33 wish it too long
2:27:34 well when you say the inshallah what
2:27:36 that means
2:27:39 if god dwells what god missing why would
2:27:42 god
2:27:43 uh would ask something second
2:27:46 what god wills why why god missing
2:27:50 something so why should you
2:27:51 why god is missing when you say
2:27:52 inshallah i mean you say god would think
2:27:54 if god will it means god is missing
2:27:57 something
2:27:58 no it doesn't no it doesn't it means
2:28:01 it means if he wills if it is a part of
2:28:03 it's blind it will occur
2:28:04 if it's not a part of this one you're
2:28:06 supposed to say let me explain
2:28:08 it explain you i ask you i said i said
2:28:10 what's the meaning of inshallah you said
2:28:11 if
2:28:12 god will yeah yeah so i think what
2:28:15 explanation is
2:28:16 only person will miss something only
2:28:18 person will wish something if they're
2:28:20 missing something
2:28:21 it's not wish i i wish i missing a
2:28:25 beautiful car probably a wish though
2:28:32 guys god's three wishes
2:28:36 it's not like a genie in the world
2:28:52 the reason i would like join this debate
2:28:54 and everything
2:28:55 guys uh you know uh when he said
2:28:58 consciousness
2:28:59 consciousness uh in english it's means
2:29:01 awareness
2:29:04 it just means you're aware of something
2:29:05 it means conscious you're conscious of
2:29:07 something
2:29:08 that's probably one way of explaining it
2:29:10 there's probably other attributes and
2:29:11 elements we can add to that as well
2:29:13 carry on no no no the way you say
2:29:16 conscious in english in translation in
2:29:18 english it means you're aware of
2:29:19 something
2:29:20 yeah be conscious of something yeah but
2:29:22 what you guys talking about it
2:29:24 in english it means pure consciousness
2:29:28 so you probably aware or not like you
2:29:30 know the scientists or philosophers have
2:29:32 bring this new spin in
2:29:33 which means pure consciousness means
2:29:35 what we understand
2:29:37 like it's not conscious conscious we all
2:29:39 conscious we all aware of something
2:29:41 well if you're saying pure consciousness
2:29:43 and you've defined the first
2:29:44 consciousness of awareness all you're
2:29:45 now saying
2:29:46 your awareness yes it's not first of all
2:29:49 if you're talking about philosophers and
2:29:51 scientists
2:29:52 they differentiate between state
2:29:53 consciousness and creature consciousness
2:29:55 what you're talking about now
2:29:57 is state consciousness if you if you
2:29:58 want to get technical
2:30:00 yes yes yes i'm just saying if you want
2:30:02 to get technical about it and sort of
2:30:03 break down what it means
2:30:05 they differentiate between state
2:30:07 consciousness and
2:30:08 creature consciousness what you're
2:30:09 talking about is being aware of
2:30:11 something is state conscious
2:30:12 creature consciousness is different but
2:30:14 the most accurate the most commonly
2:30:16 under
2:30:16 commonly used understanding of
2:30:18 consciousness is
2:30:20 one second what thomas nagle described
2:30:22 in his paper as
2:30:23 what it is like to be to experience
2:30:26 something that's the most commonly used
2:30:29 whatever whoever described it it's not
2:30:31 cleared yet by science or anything
2:30:33 like that no there is a there is a
2:30:34 standard way in which they use it in the
2:30:36 philosophy
2:30:39 let's try to make this simple listen
2:30:44 let me let me explain something yeah you
2:30:46 only have you only have a minute
2:30:48 like you know don't i'm here not for
2:30:50 argument or anything i'm just like you
2:30:51 know when you say consciousness you only
2:30:52 have
2:30:53 one minute i'm saying to you just make
2:30:55 your what's your
2:30:58 what's your thesis statement what's your
2:31:00 thesis statement
2:31:01 no no you don't have to leave now just
2:31:02 explain to us just
2:31:05 degenerate
2:31:06Laughter 2:31:12 i like that my brother like you know
2:31:15 like but last caller you didn't show
2:31:17 this for uh this time
2:31:19 i know i know i know and but then we so
2:31:22 the plan is just you know the podcast we
2:31:25 try to stick to two hours
2:31:34 it's not fair like you know you you give
2:31:36 other guy you never show him
2:31:37 it's not about whether it's fair bro at
2:31:38 the end of the day we don't have
2:31:40 unlimited time if we if we just left the
2:31:42 link out there and everyone that came on
2:31:44 was to get unlimited amount of time
2:31:46 we'd be here for ten hours i've got a
2:31:47 wife a child i've got work
2:31:49 i have brothers and you've got 20
2:31:52 seconds
2:31:53 i i also myself run the channel like you
2:31:55 know i know how it is yeah
2:31:57 so it's just it's just it's unfortunate
2:32:00 yeah
2:32:00 maybe maybe next time maybe next time
2:32:03 you can come more like
2:32:05 yeah you can come more late and then we
2:32:06 can we can have a discussion that sticks
2:32:08 to the topic maybe you could prepare
2:32:10 some points
2:32:11 like you know atheism i wasn't on about
2:32:13 atheism like you know why is growing so
2:32:15 much in
2:32:16 abraham i believe yeah five minutes
2:32:20 all right bro thank you so thanks for
2:32:22 joining and we hope to see you next time
2:32:23 thanks a lot
2:32:24 we appreciate you joining thank you take
2:32:26 care
2:32:28 uh next guest uh what's that let me
2:32:30 reset
2:32:31 i'm really sorry to have to rush you all
2:32:33 i i know it can be a bit annoying
2:32:34 especially if you've waited for a while
2:32:36 and but like i say we've got a certain
2:32:38 amount of time we we want to try and
2:32:39 keep these to two hours
2:32:41 we've already gone over however long the
2:32:43 conversations are in that first two
2:32:44 hours is
2:32:45 however long they are but once we get
2:32:47 after that point we're going to have to
2:32:48 start rushing people
2:32:49 i was trying to rush the carlos
2:32:51 conversation a bit
2:32:52 as you may have noticed um but now i
2:32:54 need to be strict and as i already said
2:32:55 before
2:32:56 i'm going to be like a tyrant uh so i
2:32:58 needed a few more minutes and i reckon i
2:33:00 could have got carlos
2:33:01 oh we could have got carlos i know
2:33:14 yes yeah just a quick actually
2:33:17 i would like that it was much longer
2:33:19 time for me
2:33:20 because i was thinking that
2:33:23 as a former atheist that converted to
2:33:27 islam
2:33:28 i was thinking that this type of
2:33:30 arguments
2:33:31 i think billions of people don't
2:33:33 understand and they are not
2:33:35 entrusted very much to you know
2:33:39 this type of academic
2:33:42 discussions if as
2:33:45 muslims we can prove them
2:33:48 that islam has the solution to every
2:33:51 single problems we are facing on this
2:33:53 planet
2:33:54 i don't think a single rational person
2:33:56 on this planet will reject it
2:33:58 okay for example
2:34:02 imagine that in a is a muslim country
2:34:06 we have several muslim presidents we
2:34:08 have had
2:34:09 several muslim presidents who
2:34:12 destroyed the country corruption went up
2:34:16 and then poverty and all these things
2:34:18 and then
2:34:19 an atheist or hindu
2:34:22 president came and proved everybody that
2:34:25 i can solve all your problems
2:34:28 every i believe that every single person
2:34:30 or muslim
2:34:31 in that country would vote for that
2:34:34 atheist
2:34:35 president or hindu president as we know
2:34:38 in for example former india
2:34:42 even muslims they followed mahatma
2:34:45 gandhi who was hindu
2:34:46 because they believed that he can help
2:34:49 them
2:34:49 uh get rid of british colonism
2:34:53 so if so really quickly
2:34:56 just very quickly yes mahatma gandhi
2:34:58 actually originally used to follow the
2:35:00 muslims
2:35:02 who were leading what they called the
2:35:03 khilafah movement
2:35:05 and he supported the the the liberation
2:35:08 of
2:35:08 india away from the british and to be re
2:35:12 united with the ottoman caliphate yeah
2:35:14 up until 1924
2:35:16 just as a correction on that yeah and
2:35:18 also i just wanted to ask sir are you
2:35:20 going to
2:35:20 try and stick to the the topic of the
2:35:22 conversation so that this stream in
2:35:24 particular is about moving from
2:35:26 stage one to stage two that is proving
2:35:28 the
2:35:29 the necessary being is god so
2:35:32 in in what way does this relate to that
2:35:34 or like are you going to move on to that
2:35:36 or
2:35:37 are you trying to take it elsewhere it's
2:35:39 a difference i just did that
2:35:40 yes he's trying he's trying to take it
2:35:42 elsewhere he's trying to say that
2:35:44 he doesn't think that these arguments
2:35:46 that we're giving
2:35:47 is really for the masses to to hear and
2:35:50 listen to
2:35:50 and he's trying to uh promote another
2:35:54 type of argument do you understand me
2:35:55 right um
2:35:57 yeah i say that if we can
2:36:01 prove everybody that this solution to
2:36:03 all our problems
2:36:04 is in quran and we prove them especially
2:36:08 if we can change our muslim world to a
2:36:10 better
2:36:10 uh place to live then people will follow
2:36:14 it we don't need okay
2:36:17 yeah you know you know i've spoken to
2:36:19 you several times
2:36:20 so let me help you cut to the chase
2:36:22 since you only got five minutes and i
2:36:23 already
2:36:24 know okay so yeah you forgot two minutes
2:36:28 so his argument is basically that in the
2:36:32 quran the whole the whole problem that
2:36:35 we're seeing now
2:36:36 is because of capitalism and that the
2:36:39 shaytan in the quran is a representation
2:36:42 of capitalism we need to completely
2:36:45 eradicate this
2:36:46 and this is going to solve all of our
2:36:48 problems that's your basic thesis
2:36:51 statement
2:36:51 is that right okay yes but okay okay
2:36:54 and this is the question i asked you
2:36:56 this is the fundamental problem with
2:36:58 your
2:36:59 your statement here your thesis is that
2:37:03 the shaitaan existed long before
2:37:06 capitalism was even dreamed of
2:37:09 can we have this discussion another time
2:37:11 so that i can have
2:37:12 i can explain it you know because i i
2:37:15 think in two minutes i cannot
2:37:17 uh argue this with you if you i know but
2:37:19 i'm saying you could never
2:37:20 you could have endless enough time and
2:37:24 you could never
2:37:24 answer that objection ever
2:37:29 can we do that yes but if you can do
2:37:32 that then
2:37:32 yes yes please i was going to say really
2:37:34 quickly look in
2:37:35 in your original point and i agree and i
2:37:38 think we all agree generally
2:37:40 is that practical example of islam
2:37:43 yeah is a stronger way to attract people
2:37:46 to islam i agree with you 100
2:37:48 in terms of that and certainly when you
2:37:51 couple practical example
2:37:53 with intellectual strong intellectual
2:37:56 arguments
2:37:57 then you've got a powerful recipe
2:37:59 because of that so i don't think there's
2:38:00 any disagreement there
2:38:02 this stream we've covered lots of
2:38:04 different topics we've only this is only
2:38:06 six
2:38:07 episodes we've got about 40 50 episodes
2:38:10 planned
2:38:11 we do them every two weeks we have other
2:38:12 content insha'allah as well
2:38:14 so we want to cover lots of different
2:38:15 topics uh on this particular
2:38:18 podcast uh so i don't think there's
2:38:20 anything um
2:38:22 in origin that we necessarily disagree
2:38:25 with
2:38:25 as a general point maybe some of the
2:38:27 finer details
2:38:28 about the particular arguments that you
2:38:30 have on
2:38:32 capitalism and shaytan yeah yeah because
2:38:34 the thing is this is wrong
2:38:36 this may very well be a subject we can
2:38:38 talk about in the future
2:38:39 we can can we do that please brother can
2:38:41 we arrange this this is
2:38:43 very very important yeah because we have
2:38:45 spoke about doing streams on
2:38:47 politics it's also discussing things
2:38:49 like capitalism marxism
2:38:50 so these things we do have them in mind
2:38:53 for future episodes
2:38:55 i i just don't think it's very um
2:38:58 related to the subject
2:38:59 i understand i understand what you said
2:39:03 there is true not
2:39:04 i would say the majority of people out
2:39:06 there aren't really too interested
2:39:08 in the abstract philosophical arguments
2:39:10 that is true
2:39:11 but the the thing is is we still want to
2:39:13 approach these as well we don't want to
2:39:14 neglect them
2:39:15 in favor of that because not everyone is
2:39:18 every
2:39:18 like most people there are a number of
2:39:21 people that do require
2:39:22 sort of rational arguments in order to
2:39:24 come to certain conclusions
2:39:25 we had two we had two atheists that came
2:39:27 on today
2:39:28 both of them left thinking that actually
2:39:30 we had a very strong argument
2:39:32 for our believers thinking differently
2:39:34 so they were convinced
2:39:36 what i say that the billions of people
2:39:38 maybe yes there are people yeah but
2:39:40 billions of people are not so interested
2:39:42 that's true they don't even understand
2:39:44 they don't even understand these boards
2:39:46 you know
2:39:46 yeah no industry i'd like to say we will
2:39:48 cover it but it's getting like
2:39:50 i do one final point on what you're
2:39:54 saying
2:39:55 but billions of people don't understand
2:39:57 it yes but i i think i mentioned this in
2:39:58 the beginning in the intro
2:40:00 that although billions of people don't
2:40:02 understand the technicalities of these
2:40:03 discussions
2:40:04 if you actually do break everything
2:40:06 we're saying down if you
2:40:08 actually deconstruct it and come to the
2:40:09 to the most foundational aspects of it
2:40:12 they are intuitively accessible even
2:40:14 though they might not know all these
2:40:16 fancy terms and you know they might not
2:40:18 know how to philosophize about it and
2:40:19 argument back and forth
2:40:21 but the the the direct the intuition
2:40:24 that we have
2:40:24 generally as human beings about
2:40:27 causality and about you know
2:40:28 agent causation and and and the the the
2:40:31 origin origin of the universe and
2:40:33 ultimate explanations and teleology and
2:40:35 morality and you know
2:40:37 purpose all of that stuff generally is
2:40:39 directly accessible
2:40:41 through uh you know a sound fitra or
2:40:44 generally an
2:40:45 an intuition and and you just don't need
2:40:47 to know all these terms in order for
2:40:49 that to be the case it doesn't have to
2:40:50 be
2:40:51 uh you know formally expressible or
2:40:54 formalizable in this analytic
2:40:57 complicated analytic manner for it to be
2:40:59 accessible through the intuition and
2:41:01 through the reason
2:41:02 so although they might be not be
2:41:03 interested in the discussion i think
2:41:04 they just have
2:41:05 direct access to it yeah i just we're
2:41:07 gonna have to leave that
2:41:09 just very fast something please very
2:41:11 fast yes very fast
2:41:13 i say that even if you show god show
2:41:16 himself or show
2:41:17 miracles people should ask why i have to
2:41:21 follow you
2:41:21 okay if god says that i can guide you
2:41:25 out of this jungle you're living in then
2:41:27 we have to follow that god
2:41:29 that can help us to get rid of our
2:41:31 problems i just say that
2:41:33 show them that god has the solution to
2:41:36 all our problems which is
2:41:38 in that quran and prove them
2:41:41 then they will follow it not that god
2:41:43 exists okay this god almighty god
2:41:45 cannot solve our problems let me follow
2:41:48 a president
2:41:49 a political party that political party
2:41:52 can show me a better
2:41:53 i mean help my problem and get rid of my
2:41:56 problems then i followed that political
2:41:57 party not
2:41:58 almighty god that cannot do anything you
2:42:00 know just say okay worship me that's all
2:42:03 right so this is exactly that we shall
2:42:05 not inshallah in the future i
2:42:07 would appreciate it if you can't yeah
2:42:08 inshaallah we will talk
2:42:11 talk long and then i explain everything
2:42:13 okay
2:42:21 okay and last but not least uh we went
2:42:24 four minutes over that one hudson so hot
2:42:27 damn what's up
2:42:29 okay so i'm looking just real quick
2:42:34 so hey so i want to test real quick
2:42:38 uh what if a contention to the
2:42:41 um that like it implies will that you
2:42:44 have
2:42:45 an eternal cause and a temporal effect
2:42:47 what if a contention was perhaps
2:42:49 it's not a will but an undiscovered uh
2:42:53 indeterminate
2:42:55 uh let's call it mechanism or something
2:42:59 yeah and perhaps and perhaps the will
2:43:02 you're interacting with right now or the
2:43:04 mind you're interacting with right now
2:43:06 isn't really a will or isn't really a
2:43:07 mind perhaps it's some undiscovered
2:43:09 mechanism
2:43:09 and you're just in this illusion that
2:43:11 you're talking to somebody who has a
2:43:12 mind and a will
2:43:13 so yeah i mean i guess the same would
2:43:16 apply
2:43:17 we're making an inference to the best
2:43:19 explanation yeah
2:43:32 so we've got to the last of the guests
2:43:35 um so we'll we'll try wrap
2:43:37 up now uh i'm gonna rush you guys as
2:43:39 well you've both got
2:43:40 you've all got one minute timers oh
2:43:42 we're joking uh but yeah
2:43:44 we'll wrap up now um we'll try to leave
2:43:46 it there for today
2:43:47 uh it's been a great podcast i think
2:43:50 we've had some really nice conversations
2:43:52 uh so we'll begin with brother jake
2:43:55 and we'll move on i mean just really
2:43:57 quickly uh i think it was a good stream
2:44:00 i think carlos and justin uh both
2:44:04 felt as far as i could tell anyway um
2:44:07 felt the force of the argument from
2:44:09 the will and the necessary being having
2:44:12 a will
2:44:13 uh if it does have a will then you know
2:44:16 how do you explain that on a
2:44:17 naturalistic
2:44:18 paradigm uh it favors the
2:44:21 theistic or if you want to go with
2:44:23 carlos and be technical deistic
2:44:25 it doesn't really matter that this being
2:44:28 this necessary being is god
2:44:30 and this is what we mean by god um
2:44:33 and so yeah i think that that was good
2:44:35 um
2:44:36 i think that was enough to uh
2:44:40 you know be sufficient to explain what
2:44:42 we were trying to get from
2:44:43 stage one to stage two uh part of the
2:44:46 issue that i see
2:44:48 is when you get the atheist to stage one
2:44:51 and you try to bring them to stage two
2:44:53 they kind of see where it's going and
2:44:55 they try to revert back to stage one to
2:44:57 say well wait wait wait wait what about
2:44:58 this like dude
2:45:00 you already agreed to stage one we're
2:45:01 going to stage two it's like you're
2:45:03 pulling him along he's like no
2:45:04 no no no but um
2:45:08 uh yeah so i think from that aspect it's
2:45:10 a it's a little bit frustrating but
2:45:12 i think it's to be expected because
2:45:16 i see it as a defense mechanism because
2:45:18 they don't really have a good answer
2:45:20 to where you're bringing them to stage
2:45:22 two so the only
2:45:24 thing to really do is to go back to
2:45:25 stage one and then cast out on that
2:45:28 and um yeah i mean the best we can do is
2:45:31 point out when that happens and try to
2:45:33 pull them back and say hey we're talking
2:45:35 about stage two i thought you agreed to
2:45:36 stage one
2:45:37 um but you know other than that i think
2:45:40 in the long run um
2:45:42 we were able to point that out and uh
2:45:44 make sufficient arguments for
2:45:46 uh the stage two so with that i'll leave
2:45:48 it to uh
2:45:49 you guys sharif if you want to go next
2:45:52 count
2:45:54 i'll be really quick uh hopefully you've
2:45:57 got a 30-second timer then
2:45:58 i agree with jake though it's it's a
2:46:00 classic sort of
2:46:02 atheist move which is sort of like
2:46:03 vehicle yeah okay we can accept a
2:46:05 necessary being it can be
2:46:07 but it could be naturalistic and then
2:46:08 you say well okay
2:46:10 let's use the same argument that we came
2:46:12 to a necessary being the same premises
2:46:14 are going to lead to a necessary being
2:46:16 that had intentionality
2:46:17 and then suddenly they start you know
2:46:19 some of them will start
2:46:20 talking about multiverses and you know
2:46:23 in infinite regress is a possibility
2:46:25 again suddenly
2:46:27 you know when it wasn't so yeah so i
2:46:30 think
2:46:30 uh it is a back and forth and this is
2:46:32 what tends to happen is that
2:46:34 you know as they move their top maybe
2:46:37 two steps forward one
2:46:38 step back keep that engagement going and
2:46:41 ensure hopefully
2:46:41 they'll understand it in terms of the
2:46:43 discussion uh we mentioned about
2:46:45 uh an eternal cause but a temporary
2:46:48 effect
2:46:49 implies a will we said contingent beings
2:46:52 that could have
2:46:52 possible number of possibilities
2:46:55 requires something to actualize that one
2:46:57 possibility as opposed to another
2:46:58 possibility
2:46:59 again requires a will we said that
2:47:02 consciousness cannot be grounded on
2:47:03 materialism
2:47:04 therefore consciousness must be
2:47:06 explained by something other than
2:47:08 a non-conscious agent therefore a
2:47:10 conscious agent
2:47:11 and the third one was not to set
2:47:13 arbitrary limits
2:47:15 upon this necessary being and by placing
2:47:17 the arbitrary limit of not being
2:47:19 conscious
2:47:20 when consciousness exists in other
2:47:22 beings yeah
2:47:24 is an arbitrary limit and requires a
2:47:26 further explanation
2:47:27 so based on those four arguments i think
2:47:30 it's very clear that
2:47:32 necessary being has to have
2:47:34 consciousness
2:47:38 do you want to wrap up there
2:47:42 no abdullah i can't hear you abdullah
2:47:44 sorry
2:47:45 no forgiveness yeah so i think we've
2:47:48 covered a lot of ground and i think
2:47:49 um as far as the stage one arguments
2:47:52 are concerned we've touched upon them
2:47:55 generally a lot of atheists
2:47:56 philosophers and laymen alike are are
2:47:59 are trying
2:47:59 are starting to become more receptive to
2:48:01 this idea of a necessary being
2:48:03 and and it seems to be uh uh
2:48:07 plausible that there is something
2:48:08 necessary uh
2:48:10 or that there is a first cause there are
2:48:12 many different routes to the same kind
2:48:14 of conclusion that there
2:48:15 is a necessary foundation and and
2:48:18 when we talked about stage two
2:48:20 cosmological arguments and the different
2:48:21 kinds of of arguments that brother
2:48:23 sharif just mentioned then there are
2:48:24 more
2:48:25 uh i think all in all we can we can we
2:48:27 can either make the stronger case which
2:48:29 i think
2:48:30 is very uh doable and very plausible
2:48:32 that
2:48:33 if we're going to be consistent in our
2:48:35 epistemology and if we're going to take
2:48:37 seriously the the the foundations of our
2:48:40 beliefs and our knowledge
2:48:41 as a whole then we can make the strong
2:48:45 and conclusive claim that god
2:48:48 necessarily exists even if we're going
2:48:50 to make the weaker claim
2:48:51 that it is it is rational to believe
2:48:56 that god exists although
2:48:57 it isn't necessarily true um uh
2:49:01 i don't think that weaker claim is
2:49:02 necessary by the way because i think the
2:49:04 stronger claim is
2:49:05 is is very doable i think we've
2:49:06 demonstrated that we can do that further
2:49:08 but even if we do go down that route of
2:49:11 you know the weaker
2:49:12 claim that it is at least there is a
2:49:13 rational basis for it
2:49:15 then and we say that there is a rational
2:49:17 basis for
2:49:18 for you know cosmology the origin of the
2:49:21 world
2:49:21 and uh stuff like uh objective morality
2:49:25 consciousness
2:49:26 free will teleology all of these stuff
2:49:30 we have a rational basis to ground that
2:49:32 in god
2:49:33 and then the atheist comes and wants to
2:49:34 reduce every single one of these aspects
2:49:37 to
2:49:37 a physical component to say that no
2:49:40 there is no ultimate meaning they might
2:49:43 be able to do that but i think
2:49:45 that given the fact that the direct
2:49:47 consequence of this
2:49:48 atheistic worldview is nihilism
2:49:52 not in the sense that they can they
2:49:53 can't have their own personal meaning
2:49:55 but in the sense that their belief about
2:49:56 these bigger questions
2:49:58 are kind of you know meaningless in the
2:50:01 sense that they don't really affect
2:50:03 anything when the fact that objective
2:50:05 truth doesn't really have an ultimate
2:50:07 purpose
2:50:07 so when it doesn't and you do realize
2:50:09 that there is this epistemic
2:50:11 permissiveness
2:50:12 in the sense that it can be rational to
2:50:14 believe in god i think in that case
2:50:16 holding on to your non-belief when you
2:50:19 know that it doesn't really matter
2:50:22 and you know just ignoring sweeping
2:50:24 under the carpet every
2:50:27 thing about the rational basis for this
2:50:30 purpose that accounts for
2:50:31 everything in our experience is
2:50:33 completely irrational i just think
2:50:35 that's
2:50:36 a bit of a pascal's wager there and we
2:50:37 can have what an episode about pascal's
2:50:39 wager
2:50:40 but i i think all in all it's
2:50:43 irrational to be an atheist given the uh
2:50:46 cumulative case we made here
2:50:49 and uh i won't be a dead horse i think
2:50:51 the brothers have pretty much
2:50:52 wrapped it up well enough there uh and
2:50:55 no need for me to add to anything
2:50:57 uh or my inability to add to anything
2:50:59 that hadn't already be covered anyway
2:51:01 so alhamdulillah to everyone who's been
2:51:04 with us today
2:51:05 and to anyone who watches this uh later
2:51:08 rather than being live
2:51:09 uh just a quick reminder if you haven't
2:51:11 already subscribed
2:51:12 do so now uh the subscribe button is
2:51:15 obviously down there
2:51:16 and make sure when you do subscribe you
2:51:18 hit the bell and
2:51:19 click all notifications so that you get
2:51:22 the obviously the
2:51:23 get notified for every episode that we
2:51:25 do um
2:51:27 other than that want to kind of remind
2:51:29 people to follow us on social media
2:51:31 so we've got twitter which is at t
2:51:34 underscore a underscore podcast
2:51:38 so do check us out there i'll pull it up
2:51:41 on the screen now as well
2:51:43 so there's our twitter and if you search
2:51:44 thought adventure podcast on
2:51:46 instagram or facebook you should find us
2:51:47 there as well and we have recently just
2:51:49 started uploading our
2:51:50 episodes onto all major platforms uh for
2:51:53 podcasting so
2:51:54 things like apple podcast uh whatsoever
2:51:57 on spotify
2:51:58 google podcasts all of them you should
2:52:00 find us there inshallah if you don't
2:52:01 find us on a particular platform
2:52:03 leave a comment below let us know um and
2:52:06 we'll try and get on there as well
2:52:08 and yeah so if you found this
2:52:09 interesting don't forget to engage
2:52:11 uh so leave comments engagement will be
2:52:14 um
2:52:15 appreciated and you know let us know if
2:52:17 you found
2:52:18 our arguments convincing or if it raised
2:52:21 more questions or
2:52:22 if you found them not convincing at all
2:52:24 um do let us know in the comments
2:52:26 section and we'll
2:52:27 obviously be sure to to check them out
2:52:29 and try to engage with you when we have
2:52:30 time
2:52:31 insha'allah um other than that help us
2:52:33 out by sharing
2:52:35 liking and yeah overall just talking
2:52:38 about us with
2:52:38 people uh when you're speaking to them
2:52:40 mention us by name and things like that
2:52:42 um but other than that thank you to
2:52:44 everyone again who has joined us today
2:52:46 uh stay tuned we'll keep you updated on
2:52:48 social media with the the topic of our
2:52:50 next conversation
2:52:51 um but other than that does anyone want
2:52:53 to say anything before we say
2:52:54 goodbye no
2:52:57 okay all right everyone
2:53:05 i like
2:53:22 ah
2:53:29 you