Kalam Cosmological Argument Strengths and Weaknesses | Thought Adventure Podcast #21 (2022-02-07) #

0:00:07 hey
0:00:30 ass saddam welcome everyone
0:00:32 welcome back to the thought adventure
0:00:34 podcast guys it's been a while
0:00:38 yeah
0:00:39 i've you know especially a while for oh
0:00:42 no no because we did that one when you
0:00:44 were down
0:00:45 in england
0:00:47 yeah um we did the 10k live stream
0:00:50 but then
0:00:51 since before that it was quite a while
0:00:53 as well
0:00:54 um so it's been a while since we've done
0:00:56 one where we're addressing things
0:00:58 um
0:00:59 not particular questions or subject
0:01:01 matters rather than just like a general
0:01:03 overview type of thing but
0:01:05 how is everyone
0:01:06 i'm that good man
0:01:09 we don't know where abdullah is
0:01:16 he's probably watching the egypt versus
0:01:18 uh are they playing he's watching that
0:01:20 football match oh he's on now
0:01:23 yeah the the egypt game is on so he's
0:01:25 probably losing his head
0:01:27 let me google it
0:01:28 i'm pretty sure it's live right now
0:01:31Laughter 0:01:33 i'm just speculating i have no idea but
0:01:38 um
0:01:41 yeah dude i think you're really lagging
0:01:43 brother because you're
0:01:45 you're cutting people off and maybe it's
0:01:47 just you being rude i don't know
0:01:51 nobody
0:01:56 hello
0:01:58 yeah i mean your your voice is coming in
0:02:00 clear it's just your um video that's all
0:02:02 i think yeah the it sounds like a bad
0:02:06 kung fu
0:02:07 dub film
0:02:11 yeah
0:02:12 no that's all right i might just turn my
0:02:13 camera off
0:02:17 or something
0:02:20 yeah i need to ring the internet company
0:02:22 tomorrow i think and get them to try to
0:02:23 sort this out because this is happening
0:02:25 too often for someone who tries to do
0:02:27 live streaming
0:02:29 yeah dude i mean especially if you're
0:02:31 paying for it i mean if they're giving
0:02:33 it to you for free
0:02:37 yeah
0:02:38 yes i think it's the connection anyway
0:02:40 abdulrahman showed up he doesn't look
0:02:42 too happy egypt must be losing are they
0:02:44 losing bro
0:02:46 zero zero extra time
0:02:48 it's gonna be a nervy 30 minutes this
0:02:50 guy man he's about to have a breakdown
0:02:55 that's what i thought you were i thought
0:02:57 you were watching the game
0:02:58 but um yeah i was like they could have
0:03:01 like thought i was busy with the kids or
0:03:02 something you didn't have to like you
0:03:04 know
0:03:04Laughter 0:03:10 anyway
0:03:12 so what are we talking about kalam
0:03:14 cosmological argument
0:03:16 uh the pros and cons of the argument
0:03:19 we're going to try to break it down as
0:03:20 best we can
0:03:22 and then uh we're going to have guests
0:03:24 on aren't we
0:03:26 inshallah
0:03:27 if you want yeah
0:03:29 okay
0:03:30 otherwise we can just talk the whole
0:03:32 time
0:03:33 yeah
0:03:34 yeah
0:03:36 uh
0:03:38 i think uh riyadh suggested we begin by
0:03:41 addressing um
0:03:43 the objection about it being greek
0:03:46 philosophy or greek thought
0:03:48 oh that's something in the chat yeah
0:03:50 yeah yeah so um we should maybe begin
0:03:53 there um
0:03:54 so basically the objection is is that um
0:03:58 recourse of things like the column
0:03:59 cosmological arguments etc
0:04:01 um are not islamic and so they shouldn't
0:04:04 be used
0:04:05 um what would you say in response to
0:04:08 that
0:04:11 begin with maybe brother
0:04:12 sharif okay so let's let's take for
0:04:15 example we know
0:04:17 uh this there's loads of ways to address
0:04:19 this issue but let's let me give you an
0:04:20 example of the quran
0:04:22 so we know that the uh
0:04:24 the quran we understand is the
0:04:25 linguistic miracle that challenged the
0:04:27 arabs
0:04:28 now in order to understand the
0:04:30 linguistic miracle of the quran you need
0:04:32 to study
0:04:34 yeah now within the quran and the sunnah
0:04:36 and within even the tao of the prophet
0:04:38 sallallahu alaihi wasallam
0:04:48 yeah but that doesn't mean the fact that
0:04:51 um just because this particular science
0:04:54 called the science of rhetoric
0:04:56 wasn't explicit at the time of the
0:04:58 prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam it's
0:05:00 not allowed for us to use that in order
0:05:03 to explain the more jesus or the
0:05:05 miraculous nature of the quran yeah so
0:05:08 science developed to explain something
0:05:11 in an explicit way which was understood
0:05:14 implicitly by the first generation of
0:05:16 muslims and the people of that
0:05:18 environment in that time similarly you
0:05:20 know the quran talks so the quran says
0:05:22 you know produce a chapter a surah like
0:05:24 the quran similarly the quran also
0:05:27 mentions allah also mentions within the
0:05:29 quran to reflect upon the universe to
0:05:31 look at the universe that these are
0:05:33 signs ayat for the existence of allah
0:05:36 and the truthfulness of islam
0:05:38 so
0:05:40 this is what we're doing is we're simply
0:05:43 making explicit what was understood by
0:05:46 many people implicitly
0:05:49 discussing these types of arguments and
0:05:51 these types of discussions and certainly
0:05:52 the scholars of the past used to have
0:05:54 these types of discussions going back to
0:05:56 the very first genera uh you know uh
0:05:58 first couple of generations of the
0:06:00 muslims like imam shafi he gives the
0:06:02 example i think it's the mulberry leaf
0:06:04 you know and how it changes form
0:06:07 uh
0:06:08 and has various uses and functions
0:06:10 um you know imam abu hanifa uses the
0:06:13 example of a ship
0:06:16 uh you know constructing itself and then
0:06:18 guiding itself across the water to find
0:06:20 a destination when he was discussing and
0:06:22 debating with a particular atheist so
0:06:24 they used various arguments very what we
0:06:26 term quote-unquote rational intellectual
0:06:29 arguments
0:06:30 so it's not you know issue of always
0:06:32 greek philosophy
0:06:34 or you know these terms wouldn't use the
0:06:36 times
0:06:38 i wasn't using
0:06:39 that yeah
0:06:40 it doesn't mean that it wasn't known it
0:06:42 wasn't accepted and it cannot be used
0:06:44 today sorry
0:06:46 no no and i think it's important to
0:06:48 point because a lot of the people that
0:06:49 say that you shouldn't do this or that
0:06:51 it's wrong et cetera um they're not
0:06:53 aware like for example they
0:06:55 follow the same people generally tend to
0:06:57 follow um
0:06:58 um
0:07:01 ibn samia and even ibn tamiya engaged in
0:07:04 discussions on these subjects like he
0:07:06 has argumentation
0:07:09 on the contingency argument for example
0:07:11 and explaining its um
0:07:14 you know the strength of it and he said
0:07:16 himself
0:07:17 um that there are many paths to
0:07:19 understanding the existence of god or
0:07:21 coming to god's existence one of them is
0:07:23 the fitra
0:07:24 one of them is revelation the other one
0:07:26 is reason and he didn't deny these as a
0:07:29 potential um path
0:07:31 to understanding or coming to the
0:07:33 acceptance that god existed and so if
0:07:36 you know if you're not in favor of using
0:07:38 reasoned arguments for the existence of
0:07:40 god
0:07:41 then you know you're also taking this as
0:07:44 a criticism necessarily towards ivan
0:07:46 samir who
0:07:47 did
0:07:48 right extensively on these subjects um
0:07:50 and gave arguments himself and gave
0:07:52 defenses of particular propositions etc
0:07:55 um you know so it's not that
0:07:58 this wasn't present in
0:08:01 the uh the islamic history it wasn't it
0:08:04 you know it's just one of those things
0:08:06 like brother sharif said he gave a very
0:08:08 good explanation as to why it's
0:08:10 not something that should be considered
0:08:12 necessarily problematic now the issue is
0:08:14 is when you're using it
0:08:16 in order to argue in favor of something
0:08:18 that is not islamic
0:08:21 um for example if you're um
0:08:24 trying to argue
0:08:25 like the mothers they did or like anyone
0:08:27 did against something like an orthodox
0:08:29 opinion
0:08:30 and you're coming to certain conclusions
0:08:32 like say you try to argue that the um
0:08:34 the quran
0:08:36 uh was
0:08:37 um you know the words of allah are
0:08:39 created
0:08:40 and there's a consensus that they're not
0:08:42 like at that point this is something
0:08:44 that becomes problematic
0:08:46 um but you know in so far as it's uh you
0:08:49 know in favor of propositions that
0:08:52 are accepted by the orthodox community
0:08:55 uh then it's not necessarily problematic
0:08:57 unless obviously the reasoning is flawed
0:08:59 in some way or
0:09:01 um invalid
0:09:06 i don't know if jake or abdullah i want
0:09:08 to add to that
0:09:10 um
0:09:11 yeah sure i mean i don't have much to
0:09:13 add other than i don't think that it's
0:09:16 just um
0:09:18 something that was derived from
0:09:20 greek philosophy or anything like that
0:09:23 it's a rational argument that is well um
0:09:27 uh
0:09:28 represented in the islamic tradition
0:09:32 pretty early on going back to the people
0:09:34 that sharif has already mentioned
0:09:37 so
0:09:37 yeah i think it's just a misconception
0:09:40 that
0:09:41 people have sometimes not only about
0:09:44 the kalam cosmological argument but
0:09:46 contingency argument or really
0:09:48 any type of rational argumentation for
0:09:50 god existing
0:09:52 it's not that we deny the concept of the
0:09:56 fitra or that we deny the
0:09:58 revelation of course not we're muslims
0:10:01 but
0:10:02 as yusuf i think rightly mentioned these
0:10:05 are different ways
0:10:06 to know or be justified in believing in
0:10:09 uh the creator
0:10:10 and uh they go hand in hand like ivan
0:10:13 tamiya talks about that the there is not
0:10:16 a conflict between reason and revelation
0:10:19 uh if you understand revelation properly
0:10:23 then it goes perfectly in line with
0:10:24 reason and if you're reasoning properly
0:10:27 it'll lead you to the revelation uh and
0:10:30 vice versa as i said so
0:10:33 it's not like this dichotomy or that
0:10:35 revelation and reason
0:10:37 or these arguments and scripture
0:10:40 uh are
0:10:40Music 0:10:41 at odds with one another in competition
0:10:44 no they they go hand in hand
0:10:47 and
0:10:48 we accept them all as legitimate now of
0:10:50 course as we'll go along further maybe
0:10:53 to discuss
0:10:55 um
0:10:56 there are certain things that revelation
0:10:58 and that's why it's called revelation
0:11:01 reveals things that the akkad or that
0:11:03 the intellect alone cannot reach
0:11:06 and we certainly accept that but certain
0:11:08 things can be known
0:11:10 through reason alone and one of them is
0:11:13 the existence of god and that's uh
0:11:17 one reason why we're discussing the klam
0:11:19 argument because it at least attempts
0:11:21 to try to um
0:11:23 provide evidence or an argument for
0:11:26 god's existence
0:11:28 so abdulrahman if you want to come in
0:11:33 yeah i mean i'm
0:11:36 i mean if if someone says that i'd i'd
0:11:38 just ask them to
0:11:40 you know point out uh what premise or
0:11:44 idea
0:11:45 or principle they think
0:11:47 that you know uh the argument uses
0:11:50 um that
0:11:51 is is against islam simple as that
0:11:54 i'm not sure what what would that be um
0:11:56 a lot of times these kinds of claims are
0:11:59 more about you know a certain historical
0:12:01 context about
0:12:03 a certain sect of people that were
0:12:05 called
0:12:07 right
0:12:08 and it's not about philosophy you know
0:12:10 itself um as in reasoning it's not about
0:12:13 reasoning uh but sometimes people don't
0:12:15 really realize that but then i think
0:12:17 it's just the easiest thing to do is to
0:12:18 ask the person i mean
0:12:21 where's your
0:12:22 right as has a lot of people
0:12:25 like saying all right so what is it i'm
0:12:26 saying what is the premise or the
0:12:28 principle that i am relying on in this
0:12:30 line of reasoning
0:12:32 that you know it contradicts islam or
0:12:35 what is it about the idea of inviting
0:12:38 people to islam using reasoning
0:12:41 that is against islam so
0:12:43 i'm not sure what they'd say there
0:12:48 yeah i'm not sure either i mean we i
0:12:50 think that
0:12:51 just about covers it for um
0:12:54 yeah that particular point
0:12:55 no i think so too um so we could jump
0:12:58 into now um i guess discussing
0:13:02 a few things about the kalam itself so
0:13:04 let's begin by asking so you know what
0:13:07 are your general thoughts about the
0:13:08 success of the
0:13:10 clown cosmological argument
0:13:12 uh like for example does it prove the
0:13:13 existence of allah subhanahu wa ta'ala
0:13:16 um
0:13:16 you know
0:13:17 what would you say on that um or do you
0:13:20 think there's a gap issue
0:13:25 who wants to go first
0:13:29 i like the
0:13:33 oh so that's that's that's me right
0:13:36 whether whether or not there is a gap uh
0:13:39 is going to depend on whether you
0:13:41 provide an argument that bridges the gap
0:13:43 right so you have a stage one
0:13:46 uh uh cosmological argument
0:13:48 you arrive at a first cause and uh if
0:13:51 there's a gap from the first cause to
0:13:53 god well i mean can you bridge that gap
0:13:56 that's really the question obviously we
0:13:57 think we can i do not think there's a
0:13:59 gap
0:14:00 so there is a lot to say after arriving
0:14:02 at first class it's not just first cause
0:14:04 and that's it so um
0:14:06 so and we have an entire stream about
0:14:08 that i think um
0:14:10 you know stage two uh cosmological
0:14:12 arguments
0:14:13 uh so yeah um i and whether or not the
0:14:16 argument is successful i think i think
0:14:17 it certainly is successful um so so uh
0:14:21 of course there's a lot of detail that
0:14:23 that goes into that but but uh just
0:14:26 you know in a nutshell i do think it is
0:14:28 successful
0:14:34 brother __ do you not
0:14:37 okay so
0:14:40 what was mentioned is i mean my general
0:14:42 thoughts on the kalam is i think it's a
0:14:45 good argument
0:14:46 i personally don't think it's the best
0:14:48 argument and it's not um
0:14:52 it's not my personal go-to argument
0:14:55 i think the contingency argument is is
0:14:58 probably a stronger argument
0:15:01 uh however i i do think that it is
0:15:04 successful
0:15:05 uh i think it can prove uh more than the
0:15:09 existence of simply a first cause i
0:15:11 think we can
0:15:12 say many more things about it and the
0:15:14 fact that it has
0:15:16 uh intelligence power will
0:15:19 etc
0:15:21 so
0:15:22 i mean
0:15:24 obviously we'll go into individually the
0:15:26 premises of the argument where the
0:15:28 strengths and weaknesses
0:15:29 i guess of each one of the premises but
0:15:31 just briefly i do think it's a
0:15:34 successful argument it's not my personal
0:15:36 favorite i don't think it's the
0:15:37 strongest argument
0:15:39 however i do think that it works and i
0:15:41 think it gets you to a first cause with
0:15:44 certain attributes that are consistent
0:15:46 with
0:15:47 uh the existence of allah or god
0:15:51 yeah and i would just pretty much
0:15:52 reiterate what jake says except that i
0:15:54 just i probably never use it um
0:15:58 not because it's
0:15:59 not got any merits or anything but just
0:16:00 because i prefer contingency
0:16:02 um and from what i do understand of them
0:16:05 i do understand that one much better um
0:16:07 with regards to the the gap thing i i
0:16:10 don't ever think these things are issues
0:16:12 because generally
0:16:14 people uh and we have this problem
0:16:16 sometimes with
0:16:18 muslims but definitely with non-muslims
0:16:21 where there they want proof for god and
0:16:24 generally argumentation like abdul
0:16:26 rahman mentioned goes in stages or goes
0:16:28 in steps
0:16:30 and so you have to begin with step one
0:16:33 in order to move to step two like if you
0:16:35 want to learn how to make a cake there's
0:16:38 no point me telling you right and then
0:16:40 you put it in the other oven
0:16:42 at x amount temperature and you know for
0:16:45 this amount of time if i've not even
0:16:47 told you how to you know what
0:16:49 ingredients to use and how to mix it etc
0:16:51 so you know
0:16:52 you take these things in stages and you
0:16:54 have to begin at the beginning you
0:16:55 convince them at the first step and if
0:16:57 they can see to that then you can move
0:16:58 on to the next and if you don't do that
0:17:01 which you you don't have to
0:17:03 all that's going to happen is if they do
0:17:05 concede to step two so if they say no
0:17:07 let's skip step one you get to step two
0:17:09 and let's say they say yeah it follows
0:17:11 that if there is a first cause or if
0:17:14 there is a necessary being or if there
0:17:17 is an independent being then it does
0:17:19 follow based on what you've said that
0:17:21 that would be a god but you've not even
0:17:23 shown me what that there is one you've
0:17:25 not even proved that there is a first
0:17:27 cause or you've not even proved that
0:17:28 there is a necessary and then you just
0:17:30 have to go back to the first step anyway
0:17:32 and it's just frustrating like so
0:17:35 i i prefer to go in
0:17:37 order myself and
0:17:40 so you know if you're going to use the
0:17:41 kalam or whatever it is you're using um
0:17:44 so long as you like explicitly clear to
0:17:46 everyone and the people you're talking
0:17:48 to understand listen this is just the
0:17:50 first step from here after that if you
0:17:52 concede to this we would then have to
0:17:54 explain
0:17:55 maybe why this being has a will why
0:17:57 these being why this being has um
0:18:00 you know xyz uh
0:18:03 attributes
0:18:04 then you could go ahead with it and i
0:18:06 know it's here as well like so you know
0:18:07 it what what's um problematic with those
0:18:10 conclusions like abdul rahman said as
0:18:12 well like if you're giving an argument
0:18:14 for the existence of something that is
0:18:16 the first cause or that you know it is
0:18:18 itself uncaused or is necessary that
0:18:21 which is to say that it must always
0:18:23 exist that is we're making an argument
0:18:26 for the eternality
0:18:28 of allah azzawajal you know if if these
0:18:31 are arguments that work and that do show
0:18:34 the existence of something that is
0:18:36 eternal of something that cannot not
0:18:38 exist of something that is
0:18:40 the the sourceable power of something
0:18:42 that is intelligent of something that
0:18:43 has a will
0:18:44 etc we're not saying you can do this
0:18:47 with every single attribute because we
0:18:48 would then still say well you know if
0:18:50 you want to learn more about allah you
0:18:52 would have to let him explain that of
0:18:55 himself and so this is where revelation
0:18:56 comes in and so you would point them to
0:18:58 the quran and say look you know
0:19:01 there is this being that exists it's
0:19:03 eternal it's wise it's has knowledge it
0:19:05 has power it has a will it's creating
0:19:08 things because it chooses to do so and
0:19:10 it's created you
0:19:12 and there is an opportunity here to get
0:19:14 to know this being more so read the
0:19:17 quran find out about it see what allah
0:19:20 tells you about himself
0:19:22 and learn about the you know the
0:19:24 attributes in more detail with reference
0:19:27 to that and with reference to the sunnah
0:19:28 of the prophet muhammad which go into
0:19:31 much more detail
0:19:32 and so you know you you still need
0:19:36 revelation this is something that
0:19:38 you know we're always going to point
0:19:39 people towards and i would you know
0:19:41 recommend even now like pick up a quran
0:19:43 if you haven't already buy one read it
0:19:46 get to know the one who made you this is
0:19:47 it's it's not just like a an open vague
0:19:50 letter
0:19:51 that is if you by the quran is speaking
0:19:54 directly to you as the reader and
0:19:57 so you know that this isn't to downplay
0:19:59 or negate the importance of the quran or
0:20:02 the the role that it plays
0:20:04 in the process of someone becoming a
0:20:06 believer i would say it's definitely
0:20:07 crucial and a huge part of that um and
0:20:12 obviously there's only so much you can
0:20:13 say in a discussion if you're going to
0:20:14 talk about the kalam
0:20:16 there's you're going to have to focus on
0:20:18 it because if you start mentioning too
0:20:19 many other things only one goal
0:20:21 what happens is the conf the whole
0:20:23 topic becomes quite confused sometimes
0:20:25 so
0:20:26 and i think that's what frustrates
0:20:27 people sometimes it's just that
0:20:29 when you're trying to keep the
0:20:30 conversation streamlined they're like oh
0:20:32 why didn't you mention this why didn't
0:20:33 you mention that one i said well because
0:20:35 you know that might take away from the
0:20:36 conversation a little bit or d
0:20:38 distract it from the points you're
0:20:40 trying to conclude with
0:20:41 and
0:20:42 you just need to have a little bit of
0:20:43 patience
0:20:47 but there's an interesting question here
0:20:48 as well actually um by roger
0:20:51 um
0:20:52 if someone can pull that up it's just
0:20:54 above the new member and
0:20:56 to the person who became the video
0:20:59 yeah
0:21:00 um what's his name roger
0:21:02 yeah it's a good question his question
0:21:04 was basically okay here it is i was
0:21:06 gonna ask i was gonna mention this point
0:21:08 yeah jake wants to mention it but just
0:21:11 as a quick
0:21:12 summary
0:21:13 uh i don't think christians actually
0:21:16 believe the kca leads to the christian
0:21:18 religion they just believe it supports
0:21:20 the idea that a creator of god exists
0:21:23 that's it
0:21:24 they never they will accept they will
0:21:26 acknowledge that you need further
0:21:27 evidences to point towards the christian
0:21:30 religion so it's not kca is a catch-all
0:21:32 you know if you want to be a christian
0:21:34 you use a kca you want to be a buddhist
0:21:36 or hindu or whatever it is or muslim you
0:21:38 use the kca no kca
0:21:40 is used to demonstrate and prove that
0:21:44 there is some sort of creator cause
0:21:46 that's eternal independent and that
0:21:49 everything else is dependent upon all
0:21:51 those things that begin to exist are
0:21:52 dependent upon that's pretty much it i
0:21:54 don't know if jake wants to uh
0:21:56 then
0:21:59 yeah no i mean
0:22:01 kalam is just a uh generic argument
0:22:03 obviously that the term has been used
0:22:06 and popularized by a particular
0:22:08 christian william lane craig because he
0:22:11 um
0:22:12 you know took a lot from the muslim
0:22:14 tradition specifically
0:22:16 and so he
0:22:18 uses that terminology because kalam is
0:22:20 just
0:22:21 basically
0:22:23 i mean there's different ways you can
0:22:24 explain or define it but basically it's
0:22:26 a theological tradition with amongst the
0:22:28 sunni muslims
0:22:30 and um
0:22:31 so because
0:22:32 he took from that tradition
0:22:34 he's given it that name and sort of
0:22:37 popularized it in modern times but
0:22:39 certainly of course by the fact that
0:22:41 it's found in the muslim tradition and
0:22:44 um much of his inspiration has been
0:22:46 taken from there it's obviously not only
0:22:48 compatible with christianity and um i
0:22:52 don't think william lane craig or really
0:22:54 any other
0:22:55 christian
0:22:56 philosopher theologian worth anything
0:22:59 would ever make that claim
0:23:00 so certainly not it's not something that
0:23:03 leads to the christian
0:23:04 uh religion we wouldn't even say that it
0:23:07 leads necessarily to islam but it proves
0:23:10 that there is a creator and then
0:23:13 once the
0:23:14 atheist who at that point accepts the
0:23:17 argument is no longer an atheist we can
0:23:19 move to the next step of trying to um
0:23:22 actually bring them to islam
0:23:24 so yeah i hope that's clear to the
0:23:26 audience and uh sophia i posted before
0:23:30 just became a new member so
0:23:32 uh jazakallah for that
0:23:35 and um
0:23:36 i don't know if anybody else wants to
0:23:38 comment on that particular question
0:23:40 before we move on
0:23:42 i i don't have any questions so that
0:23:44 particular question i want you to just
0:23:45 answer the original question that you're
0:23:47 so fast oh okay yeah yeah go ahead yes
0:23:51 but i also have to you know so because
0:23:53 it's been mentioned a couple of times uh
0:23:54 my name's been mentioned a couple of
0:23:56 times in the comments section so
0:23:58 i've needed a haircut for the last
0:24:00 couple of
0:24:02 weeks and i look a bit all up because i
0:24:05 need a haircut so yeah so he's keeping
0:24:07 warm for the winter
0:24:09 yeah that's right
0:24:10 so
0:24:12 first thing is this is uh my thoughts
0:24:14 about the casey i don't actually use the
0:24:16 kca i maybe use sort of a modified
0:24:18 version which sort of links the
0:24:20 contingency argument with a bit of the
0:24:22 kca together yeah but i don't use a case
0:24:24 here on its own and i
0:24:26 i've never really um
0:24:29 favored the kca that much yeah because i
0:24:31 think there's too much work you need to
0:24:34 do when it comes to the argument itself
0:24:37 yeah it doesn't mean that it doesn't
0:24:39 necessarily work i do think like the
0:24:41 other brothers have mentioned it does
0:24:42 work but there's a lot of just simply
0:24:44 because obviously the case here
0:24:45 everybody understands kta is whatever
0:24:48 begins to exist as a cause or an
0:24:49 explanation of why it exists uh the
0:24:52 universe began to exist and therefore
0:24:53 the universe has a course yeah so
0:24:55 everybody can understand that's why it's
0:24:56 become quite popular quite well known
0:24:58 it's been used in lots of debates it's
0:25:00 been used by william lane craig a lot
0:25:02 he's popularized it's very easy for
0:25:04 people to understand and memorize
0:25:06 but
0:25:08 the reason why i think it sometimes uh
0:25:11 you know the weaknesses in the argument
0:25:13 is that you have to really dive into the
0:25:15 premises and bring up more of an
0:25:18 explanation and i think you end up
0:25:20 falling back upon a form of contingency
0:25:23 argument then when you're explaining why
0:25:26 do you assume that whatever begins to
0:25:28 exist has a cause or an explanation or
0:25:32 you know you'll end up
0:25:33 when you're talking about the the
0:25:34 ultimate cause you end up sort of
0:25:36 talking about a necessary being and then
0:25:38 resulting into a discussion about
0:25:40 contingency as well
0:25:42 however and i think yourself you
0:25:45 mentioned this a couple of days ago on a
0:25:47 stream actually uh not this one another
0:25:49 one
0:25:50 really nice uh point which is that you
0:25:52 said that all the various arguments are
0:25:55 used for the existence of a creator and
0:25:56 all the various evidences that are used
0:25:59 they also add to the attributes
0:26:01 yeah
0:26:02 so you know contingency argument is
0:26:04 going to give you a certain
0:26:04 understanding cosmological argument
0:26:07 another understanding the transcendental
0:26:09 arguments are going to give you another
0:26:10 understanding about knowledge and
0:26:12 you know
0:26:14 of all those panels so each argument
0:26:16 that you use you start to build an
0:26:18 understanding about uh the necessity of
0:26:21 a creator and some of the attributes
0:26:23 regardless of that so i think casey
0:26:25 certainly helps because of that um
0:26:28 just from that syllogism itself it
0:26:31 doesn't say god i don't think it just
0:26:33 says cause but you have to do a bit more
0:26:35 work to then say okay
0:26:37 well you know we can get to a a
0:26:39 quote-unquote theistic or deistic
0:26:42 view
0:26:43 of a of a cause uh uh from the argument
0:26:47 but you have to do a bit more work which
0:26:48 is not necessarily contained within the
0:26:50 original two sets of premises uh within
0:26:53 the argument um so yeah so just that's
0:26:56 my general thoughts i think in the
0:26:58 questions that we've got we'll probably
0:27:00 get into more of a discussion about that
0:27:03 yeah let's let's go
0:27:06 i was just going to say one more thing
0:27:07 it's like asking does that step take you
0:27:09 upstairs it's like oh kinda yeah but
0:27:12 it's not just that one step you've got
0:27:14 the whole staircase to climb and
0:27:16 people get frustrated
0:27:18 when you point out well you've got to
0:27:19 take the first step first or you're like
0:27:22 you can jump
0:27:23 steps i guess but
0:27:24 the point is you've still got to start
0:27:26 at the bottom of the staircase before
0:27:27 you can get to the top um so yeah then
0:27:29 the next question then i guess is just
0:27:31 what are the premises of the argument so
0:27:33 if someone wants to present them
0:27:35 yeah sharif already briefly went through
0:27:37 it but i mean it just has two premises
0:27:40 and a conclusion uh generally speaking
0:27:42 at least a modern uh version of it that
0:27:45 premise one whatever begins to exist has
0:27:48 a cause
0:27:49 premise two the universe began to exist
0:27:52 and the conclusion of the argument is
0:27:53 therefore the universe has a cause
0:27:56 so it's just two premises and a
0:27:58 conclusion
0:27:59 and i think sharif is correct one of the
0:28:02 reasons why it has become popular not
0:28:05 just because william lane craig has been
0:28:06 using it or various other people have
0:28:09 been propagating it
0:28:10 it's because relatively speaking
0:28:13 is something easy to follow it's only
0:28:16 two premises in the conclusion and the
0:28:18 premises are
0:28:20 pretty self-explanatory
0:28:22 not just with the evidence but
0:28:25 of what the argument is trying to state
0:28:27 is pretty clear and concise
0:28:29 and so um
0:28:31 i mean i don't know if you guys want to
0:28:33 comment on anything other than that
0:28:35 otherwise you can just move to the first
0:28:37 premise
0:28:38 and discuss this idea of whatever begins
0:28:41 to exist as a cause
0:28:43 um what do you think
0:28:47 yeah i think we should move on to the
0:28:48 first premise uh yourself what you
0:28:50 reckon
0:28:54 yeah of course
0:28:55 yeah go ahead
0:28:57 yes whatever begins to exist has a cause
0:29:00 do things begin to exist
0:29:03 what we see um as transformation
0:29:06 of one form of matter
0:29:08 what we see is transformation of one
0:29:09 form of matter to another uh so yeah
0:29:12 certain do things actually begin to
0:29:13 exist how would you justify or support
0:29:16 that premise
0:29:17 well as soon as the other two
0:29:20 have gone off actually yeah there you go
0:29:21 jake's here so um yeah i don't know if
0:29:24 jake you want to take that particular
0:29:26 question or join me to uh yeah i just i
0:29:28 was thirsty so i shut my camera off to
0:29:30 take a drink i don't want to
0:29:31Laughter 0:29:34 yeah but um
0:29:36 yeah i mean
0:29:37 this is this thing
0:29:40 it's just you know my rearranging itself
0:29:43 yeah yeah this is this is a common
0:29:46 atheist objection where they say
0:29:48 well forget about things beginning to
0:29:50 exist and i don't not only deny that
0:29:53 everything that begins to exist as a
0:29:55 cause
0:29:56 uh nothing even begins to exist so the
0:29:58 art the
0:30:00 argument or the first premise doesn't
0:30:02 even get off the ground
0:30:04 and
0:30:05 basically what you'll see them saying is
0:30:09 there's an assumption already in that
0:30:11 response
0:30:13 that some type of existence is eternal
0:30:16 and
0:30:17 um
0:30:18 naturally
0:30:19 meaning something in the physical realm
0:30:22 is eternal which is an assumption but
0:30:24 what they're saying is for example
0:30:27 the computer that my desk is on i mean
0:30:29 the desk that my computer is on this
0:30:31 desk is made of a particular structure
0:30:34 of wood it was put together
0:30:36 but before that obviously it was part of
0:30:39 a tree or a set of trees
0:30:41 and so on and so on they're basically
0:30:44 saying that
0:30:45 the material structure whether it be
0:30:47 matter energy or some type of
0:30:49 configuration of it it never began to
0:30:52 exist it's just matter and energy just
0:30:55 chain changing from one form to the next
0:30:58 so all we see is this transformation of
0:31:01 one form of matter and energy into
0:31:03 another and so nothing really begins to
0:31:05 exist well that kind of
0:31:08 first of all as i said it assumes
0:31:10 that the
0:31:12 uh
0:31:13 these different structures are just
0:31:15 changing from one form to the next and
0:31:17 that it is this eternal process of
0:31:19 changing going on which is
0:31:22 sort of begging the question in the
0:31:24 favor of the opponent of the argument
0:31:26 because that's the very thing that's in
0:31:27 question number one
0:31:29 and the the second thing is well
0:31:33 exactly what you just described as
0:31:35 transferring or transforming from one
0:31:37 thing to another that's exactly what we
0:31:40 mean
0:31:40 when we say that it began to exist for
0:31:42 example this desk really began to exist
0:31:46 if you take
0:31:47 an a theory of time seriously which
0:31:50 maybe we'll get into a little bit more
0:31:53 in depth later on but if if you take
0:31:55 that seriously
0:31:57 there was a time at which this desk
0:31:59 didn't exist meaning in the form that it
0:32:02 is it did not exist this way it began to
0:32:05 exist it doesn't mean that um for
0:32:08 example that we're necessarily assuming
0:32:10 at least not yet
0:32:12 that
0:32:13 the every part of this even in its
0:32:16 various forms had a beginning out of
0:32:19 nothing no we're we haven't gone that
0:32:22 far yet so it's just a misunderstanding
0:32:24 of what the argument is trying to say
0:32:26 the argument is making that very point
0:32:29 that when we say that something began to
0:32:31 exist we're talking about the form that
0:32:33 it is the structure that it's in at a
0:32:36 particular time it had a beginning in
0:32:39 time meaning prior to
0:32:41 i don't know whenever this desk was
0:32:42 created maybe i don't know how long ago
0:32:44 actually um there it had a genuine
0:32:47 beginning to that structure so
0:32:50 it's basically a response to the
0:32:53 argument that is based on a
0:32:55 misunderstanding of what the argument is
0:32:58 attempting to convey as far as you know
0:33:00 the other thing is this and this is
0:33:02 really i think it's really important
0:33:03 because it always is brought up as a
0:33:05 contention to the first premise nothing
0:33:07 begins to exist
0:33:08 but if you really think about it that's
0:33:10 not a criticism of the first premise
0:33:13 the first premise says whatever begins
0:33:15 to exist yeah it's not making a
0:33:17 statement about anything that has begun
0:33:20 to exist yeah it's just saying whatever
0:33:23 has begun to exist will have a cause by
0:33:25 saying well nothing's begun to exist
0:33:28 doesn't critique the first premise
0:33:31 yeah really you're actually moving to a
0:33:33 second premise of the argument or you're
0:33:34 talking about the universe yeah because
0:33:36 basically what you're saying
0:33:38 you're basically saying you can rephrase
0:33:40 it to a conditional statement that if
0:33:43 something begins to exist then it has a
0:33:45 cause that's basically what the uh
0:33:49 premise the first premise is saying
0:33:51 it's not even necessarily
0:33:53 making the claim at least yet that
0:33:56 everything began to exist
0:33:59 that's when it comes to the second
0:34:00 premise as you said when it says the
0:34:02 universe began to exist yeah based on
0:34:05 the first premise alone you don't know
0:34:07 whether or not you're you're making that
0:34:09 argument yet we're just saying if
0:34:11 something begins to exist then it has a
0:34:13 cause so you can understand it in that
0:34:15 conditional form and maybe it's a bit
0:34:17 clearer yeah yeah that's a good point
0:34:20 the second thing as well which is also
0:34:22 important is
0:34:24 when when the first premise says
0:34:26 whatever begins to exist
0:34:28 it's not talking about specifically this
0:34:30 is what they want to do they want to
0:34:31 specify this to mean beginning to exist
0:34:34 from absolute nothing doesn't say that
0:34:37 it says whatever begins to exist so he's
0:34:39 talking about anything that begins to
0:34:42 exist so events can begin to exist
0:34:44 transformations can begin to occur yeah
0:34:47 so it's referring to anything that has a
0:34:50 beginning so the idea that your
0:34:52 conscious experience began to exist
0:34:55 requires a cause yeah so that's not
0:34:58 going to be denied so irrespective of
0:35:00 whether the material that makes up your
0:35:02 brain has always existed in one form or
0:35:05 another your conscious experience began
0:35:07 to exist i you yourself as a human being
0:35:10 began to exist now to deny that you
0:35:13 exist
0:35:15 yeah that you are just simply the
0:35:18 collection of atoms and electrons and
0:35:20 that's it all subatomic particles and
0:35:22 there's nothing that ever begins to
0:35:24 exist in fact this this you know thought
0:35:27 adventure podcast didn't begin to exist
0:35:29 you know
0:35:30 goes down the line of what we call
0:35:32 neurological nihilism yeah which is
0:35:35 basically saying
0:35:36 there is nothing
0:35:38 except the fundamental aspects of matter
0:35:41 what we describe things as you know jake
0:35:44 or sharif or the laptop or the
0:35:47 microphone or lights or whatever it is
0:35:50 or houses these are just names we give
0:35:53 they never began to exist it's just some
0:35:55 a mental you know uh projection uh upon
0:36:00 upon uh things yeah and really to go
0:36:02 down this line of neurological nihilism
0:36:04 maybe abdulrahman can explain it better
0:36:06 but to go down this line of neurological
0:36:09 nihilism is i think it's a really
0:36:11 terrible position
0:36:13 uh to take yeah and you just it's not
0:36:16 yes
0:36:17 yeah um
0:36:19 the thing is i think what you said
0:36:21 wasted towards the end there is quite
0:36:22 right i mean
0:36:24 if the the principle can be rephrased i
0:36:28 mean um
0:36:29 if if if a radiological miles finds it
0:36:32 problematic you know
0:36:33 coming into existence
0:36:35 uh but you see the thing is um they're
0:36:38 not really denying a causal principle
0:36:40 they're denying that something
0:36:42 begins to exist in the sense that it
0:36:44 didn't exist that it existed
0:36:47 um
0:36:47 of course it's that's gonna depend on
0:36:49 what they think you know their
0:36:50 metaphysics about like you know events
0:36:52 and stuff like that i mean i mean do do
0:36:54 do events exist but obviously for
0:36:56 mariological niles it doesn't and all
0:36:58 that exists is the fundamental
0:37:00 particles however that doesn't deny that
0:37:04 what's it called
0:37:06 these changes that occur within
0:37:09 a um you know a physical system or
0:37:12 whatever system
0:37:14 do have causes so
0:37:15 um i mean there's a lot to say there but
0:37:18 i think just denying the principle on
0:37:20 that basis is is quite silly because um
0:37:23 i mean i think their mind goes directly
0:37:26 to the conclusion of the argument
0:37:29 and like creation like nilo for example
0:37:31 right but the all the causal principles
0:37:33 committed to is that you know if
0:37:35 something occurs at t and it you know
0:37:37 was not in in existence at t minus one
0:37:40 uh then that thing has a cause and i
0:37:42 think any reasonable person
0:37:44 should accept that
0:37:46 yeah and just to add to that um
0:37:49 because
0:37:50 often like obviously this is
0:37:52 uh
0:37:53 inductive and
0:37:55 like i've mentioned this point
0:37:56 previously before that if you're not
0:37:59 willing to accept this first premise
0:38:02 then you throw a lot out of the window
0:38:05 um so like the the whole scientific
0:38:07 community is is
0:38:09 you know the well the scientific method
0:38:11 should i say
0:38:12 um it's you know using this as an axiom
0:38:16 like it you have to assume causality in
0:38:18 order to go out and explore the world
0:38:19 and try to understand it um on top of
0:38:21 that there is more evidence for that
0:38:24 premise than there is anything else
0:38:26 really there's maybe a few other things
0:38:27 that we can say are in the same sort of
0:38:29 league but like everyone's experience in
0:38:32 the world
0:38:33 is in line with that premise and not
0:38:36 just today but as far back as
0:38:38 uh recorded history is that you know
0:38:40 people understand that if things begin
0:38:43 to exist that they have causes that
0:38:45 things don't just pop into existence out
0:38:47 of nothing and there is more evidence
0:38:49 for that than there is evidence to infer
0:38:51 anything about the nature of atoms
0:38:54 and if you look at the data set of the
0:38:57 amount of atoms that we've studied
0:38:59 yet we were able to make conclusions
0:39:01 about atoms in general
0:39:04 that's
0:39:05 com it's ridiculously a lot less so much
0:39:08 more or less like it's if you compare
0:39:10 how many atoms have been studied so how
0:39:12 many atoms there are
0:39:14 you're talking like
0:39:16 0.0000 for ages
0:39:18 0.1
0:39:20 of a data set and
0:39:22 we're saying that the scientific
0:39:23 community is perfectly justified in
0:39:25 making these inferences because you know
0:39:27 if you keep repeating the test enough
0:39:28 times regardless of how many atoms are
0:39:32 in the world it becomes quite reasonable
0:39:33 to say well you know we can say this
0:39:35 about atoms we can say this about the
0:39:37 fundamental particles that make atoms up
0:39:38 we can say this that you know and these
0:39:40 are all inductive you know we're making
0:39:42 an inference based on a particular data
0:39:44 set
0:39:45 from a consistency of results
0:39:47 and like the
0:39:49 you know causal principle here that
0:39:50 everything that begins to exist has a
0:39:53 cause
0:39:54 has way more data for it than most of
0:39:57 the other conclusions
0:39:58 people are willing to make and half of
0:40:00 the time it feels like the people when
0:40:02 they
0:40:03 try to argue against this like you three
0:40:05 brothers had a discussion with someone
0:40:08 on um
0:40:09 khalil allah's channel
0:40:11 and there was a whole moment where there
0:40:13 was this this was in contention and it
0:40:15 just felt like what why are you arguing
0:40:17 against that principle like just jump to
0:40:19 the next one and you can discuss about
0:40:20 whether or not the universe had a
0:40:22 beginning it just seems pointless
0:40:24 are you your first premise
0:40:27 because i think what you're doing you're
0:40:28 preempting the next question actually
0:40:30 which is good under that but this one is
0:40:33 not denying that things that begin to
0:40:35 exist as a cause they're denying the
0:40:37 fact the fact that things begin to exist
0:40:39 in the first place
0:40:41 so you never began to exist
0:40:43 the atoms and the molecules or the atoms
0:40:45 and the electrons have always existed
0:40:48 they just did a rearrangement
0:40:51 you see what i mean yeah but even then
0:40:53 the atoms haven't always existed
0:40:56 whatever it is well but that's the very
0:40:58 same that's the very thing in question
0:41:00 we're not even getting to that point
0:41:02 they're just saying
0:41:03 the the first premise is wrong because
0:41:05 nothing begins to exist so it's a
0:41:07 pointless uh premise
0:41:11 you didn't begin to exist we didn't
0:41:12 begin to exist this call didn't begin to
0:41:15 exist because what they're doing they're
0:41:16 trying to reduce beginning to exist to
0:41:18 mean beginning to exist from x nichollow
0:41:22 yeah so we've never seen something come
0:41:24 from absolute nothing
0:41:27 to something
0:41:29 yeah i mean i mean
0:41:32 you don't even have to go for like the
0:41:33 inductive or
0:41:35 consider like a
0:41:36 like an axiom or a presupposition of
0:41:38 reason which a lot of people do um
0:41:41 i think like it's it's definitely a
0:41:43 causal principle as one of the
0:41:44 candidates for like a good like you know
0:41:47 the axiom of of whatever epistemic
0:41:50 system you have so
0:41:51 like
0:41:52 i i don't
0:41:54 like you know craig
0:41:56 originally when when he he always
0:41:58 focused his defense on premise two right
0:42:01 and uh because like he he was like who
0:42:04 in his right mind with the nikon swan
0:42:06 apparently he was wrong
0:42:07 uh and and uh people do deny it but uh
0:42:11 yeah i mean at the end of the day you
0:42:12 see the way the way arguments work you
0:42:14 could deny whatever you want as in
0:42:17 it's just you don't have to accept
0:42:18 premises
0:42:20 in the sense that you could just utter
0:42:22 the words i reject that previously fine
0:42:24 okay but uh
0:42:26 i don't think that anyone seriously
0:42:30 rejects premise one um forget about like
0:42:33 generalizing it as like this universal
0:42:35 like ontological commitment i don't
0:42:37 think anybody would lean towards
0:42:40 something that begins to exist or
0:42:42 something that occurred not having a
0:42:44 cause i think somebody would be
0:42:46 generally like you know seriously and
0:42:48 sincerely agnostic about that people
0:42:50 would be
0:42:51 quite certain that things that happened
0:42:53 happen for reasons and reasons here you
0:42:55 can hash it out in terms of explanation
0:42:57 causation but uh
0:42:59 i mean at the end of the day people
0:43:01 could just keep you know knocking down
0:43:02 premises by just
0:43:04 just saying hey i reject that premise
0:43:06 well fine good for you i mean
0:43:09 okay so should we move on to the next
0:43:11 set of questions sir why assume whatever
0:43:14 begins to exist then
0:43:16 has a cause
0:43:17 and have we ever witnessed something
0:43:18 coming from nothing
0:43:20 to claim whatever begins to exist has a
0:43:22 cause
0:43:36 he's too smart man he's like
0:43:47 is there anything else you would add to
0:43:48 that or should we just jump to the next
0:43:50 set no no i think it's important we have
0:43:52 to address this because firstly
0:43:55 or again sorry
0:43:58 so the first thing is this obviously
0:44:00 what you mentioned which is the
0:44:00 inductive look what we experience now
0:44:03 what we experience doesn't have to be
0:44:06 you know something coming from
0:44:09 absolutely nothing with a cause yeah it
0:44:12 could be anything that begins to exist
0:44:14 so any events that occurs that began
0:44:17 that didn't have a previous event
0:44:19 that began would fall under the first
0:44:21 premise of the kca and therefore would
0:44:23 have a course and we have the
0:44:25 experiences for that like yes i've
0:44:26 mentioned and
0:44:28 so that's the first thing the second
0:44:30 thing
0:44:31 um
0:44:32 um is that
0:44:35 this is so axiomatic i believe this is
0:44:38 so axiomatic
0:44:40 to our ability to make rational and
0:44:42 scientific thought processes that to
0:44:45 deny it
0:44:46 means that you lose the scientific
0:44:49 method yeah so whenever we do science we
0:44:52 always experiment with something where
0:44:55 we have a something that we're testing a
0:44:58 particular variable or
0:44:59 observation we're looking at a
0:45:00 particular variable to isolate the
0:45:03 conditions around it we then isolate the
0:45:05 conditions test it and then record the
0:45:08 effects as the results
0:45:10 so within that paradigm of the or the
0:45:13 framework of the scientific method is
0:45:16 causality you have to have causality so
0:45:19 then to deny causality yeah would in if
0:45:23 in effect deny the whole scientific
0:45:25 method
0:45:26 and so then you wouldn't have the
0:45:28 ability to do anything regards to
0:45:31 science to you know to come to any
0:45:33 conclusion and the same thing obviously
0:45:35 the extension then would be rational
0:45:36 thinking as well to make any rational
0:45:38 thoughts about the world you'd have to
0:45:40 have this principle of cause and effect
0:45:42 or causality or that things that begin
0:45:45 to exist have an explanation uh for them
0:45:48 otherwise you wouldn't be able to
0:45:50 comprehend what's going around us yeah i
0:45:52 can go into a bit more detail about that
0:45:54 but
0:45:57 but i'll leave it to the brothers to
0:45:59 explain more
0:46:00 yeah no no
0:46:01 um there's there's something about like
0:46:03 neurological nihilism that i mean i
0:46:06 i spoke about this recently to somebody
0:46:08 as in um because there's two ways of
0:46:10 there's several ways of of of like um
0:46:13 dealing with certain objections and
0:46:14 positions right you could either like
0:46:15 try to refute it by like directly
0:46:18 assessing its premises and stuff like
0:46:19 that or you could look for the
0:46:22 absurdities you know it leads to so so
0:46:25 just take the meteorological nihilist
0:46:28 directly to the you know the implication
0:46:31 or conclusion of of of what the position
0:46:33 they're holding and to cut a long story
0:46:36 short the implication of neurological
0:46:37 nihilism is that you don't exist
0:46:40 that you don't even i mean forget so so
0:46:42 forget consciousness forget like it it's
0:46:45 worse than like eliminated materialism
0:46:47 which is like that that consciousness
0:46:48 doesn't exist
0:46:50 you as an individual you as a person do
0:46:52 not exist
0:46:53 and that's not an exaggeration that's
0:46:55 literally true
0:46:56 um so
0:46:58 so i i mean if somebody's willing to
0:47:00 accept that
0:47:02 then by all means but i think 99.999
0:47:06 of human beings are not willing to
0:47:09 accept that and yeah maybe we should
0:47:10 know a good reason
0:47:12 neurological realism basically yeah
0:47:15 the way the way sort of see is that you
0:47:17 look out your window you see a tree you
0:47:19 see a car you see other people
0:47:23 but the thing that you're thinking that
0:47:25 you're seeing i tree
0:47:27 car people they don't exist all that
0:47:30 exists is the atoms or whatever
0:47:32 subatomic particles that's all that
0:47:35 exists you calling that particular
0:47:37 region of space-time tree is just you
0:47:40 make it you know in your mind
0:47:43 yeah it doesn't really have a real
0:47:45 ontological
0:47:46 not even your mind
0:47:48 not even your one it's not even your
0:47:50 mind it's not even your
0:48:02 i was going to say there was a bit of
0:48:03 mauryan shift there because you know
0:48:04 what the mauryan shift is like basically
0:48:06 um
0:48:07 rejecting an argument on the basis of
0:48:09 simply uh um rejecting uh the conclusion
0:48:13 that that you know uh so so so more was
0:48:16 like they quite uh um like you know it
0:48:19 was a bit tongue-in-cheek but he was
0:48:20 kind of serious about it that you know
0:48:23 um well i know
0:48:25 that i have like about external world
0:48:27 skepticism and and his challenge to it
0:48:30 will how do i know that i have a hand
0:48:32 that my hand is real well here here's my
0:48:34 right hand and here's my left hand right
0:48:36 in that sense well so so the conclusion
0:48:38 that he's just accepting accepting that
0:48:40 as basic
0:48:41 and from there well somewhere in your
0:48:44 premises you went wrong well in this
0:48:46 case you could just simply tell the
0:48:47 meteorological mileage hey i exist
0:48:50 so
0:48:51 somewhere in your line of reasoning you
0:48:53 went wrong because it is
0:48:56 it is undeniable that i exist
0:48:58 and if people are willing to basically
0:49:01 deny their own existence well that's
0:49:02 kind of what the quran says about you
0:49:04 know
0:49:07 they forgot allah so he made them forget
0:49:09 their own selves
0:49:10 it's just it's complete and utter
0:49:13 nihilism right there like you don't even
0:49:14 exist forget purpose you do not exist so
0:49:19 i'm sure people aren't willing to accept
0:49:21 that and i'm sure somebody who adopts
0:49:23 such a position it's
0:49:24 probably merely just for the sake of
0:49:26 argumentation i mean maybe some people
0:49:27 take it seriously it's hard for me to
0:49:29 conceivable where's the don dotto when
0:49:31 you need him
0:49:33 oh well
0:49:34 exactly
0:49:35 no but yeah i
0:49:38 i sort of sense from the uh comments
0:49:40 from the audience they don't still quite
0:49:42 understand neurological nihilism so you
0:49:44 know i don't want to get into too much
0:49:45 of a discussion in regards to this but
0:49:47 yeah i can try and give an
0:49:49 another explanation for it so
0:49:52 basically if you try to understand
0:49:54 that if you if you're talking about the
0:49:57 universe and for example you're saying
0:49:59 at bottom
0:50:00 you have this sort of mindless
0:50:02 foundation
0:50:03 try to think of what is it that makes
0:50:06 one thing distinct from another
0:50:08 there is nothing
0:50:10 the thing that makes one thing distinct
0:50:12 from another is a conscious process that
0:50:14 is you look at it and you say well this
0:50:17 is a phone and you can see it and you
0:50:19 understand it
0:50:20 based on its on things like its function
0:50:23 etc or you know this is a comb you know
0:50:25 i can use this to call my bed i can't i
0:50:27 can try but it's not going to do it's
0:50:29 got a job combing my bed with my phone
0:50:31 is it when i come
0:50:32 now
0:50:33 the the this is conscious now if
0:50:35 consciousness isn't real
0:50:38 then there's no reason why you shouldn't
0:50:39 consider one thing distinct from another
0:50:42 because at the end of the day
0:50:44 the
0:50:45 only thing that makes them distinct is
0:50:47 the the sort of
0:50:48 imposition of consciousness on them and
0:50:51 if you look at them in terms of what
0:50:52 they fundamentally are they're all just
0:50:54 energy
0:50:55 and there's nothing to make this
0:50:57 distinct from that at its root
0:51:00 you know at its pure foundation they are
0:51:02 identical and not just these two things
0:51:04 but even the things between them
0:51:07 are identical
0:51:08 and if they are identical and if all
0:51:10 that is real is what is you know the
0:51:12 fundamental for everything the
0:51:14 fundamental particles
0:51:16 um then everything is just one big
0:51:18 cosmic soup
0:51:19 everything is identical everything is
0:51:21 quote unquote one and then you can't
0:51:23 make distinctions anymore you can't talk
0:51:25 about there being you know yusuf over
0:51:27 here sharif over there jake there abdul
0:51:29 rahman there we're all fundamentally the
0:51:32 same thing which is just the most
0:51:34 fundamental particles whatever they are
0:51:36 or energy or whatever you want to refer
0:51:38 to it as
0:51:39 and these distinctions are things that
0:51:41 are imposed by things that are not real
0:51:43 that is consciousness
0:51:46 that's about as
0:51:48 i mean i mean even even put
0:51:49 consciousness aside the things
0:51:51 themselves that even even concepts are
0:51:53 not real in the sense that um they don't
0:51:55 exist so there's no there's such thing
0:51:57 as car or horse or you know dog there's
0:51:59 no such thing just fundamental particles
0:52:01 so everything is just fundamental part
0:52:03 of it now that's something just i'm i'm
0:52:06 i i don't think i think most people
0:52:08 aren't willing to even take seriously
0:52:09 yeah
0:52:10 yeah you want to look at it as a cosmic
0:52:12 soup
0:52:14 it's a big blob
0:52:16 it's a big blob and that's fundamentally
0:52:18 all it is a big blob of stuff
0:52:21 and it's just one thing
0:52:23 and the reason why i think nobody really
0:52:24 accepts it is because nobody
0:52:27 will accept that you know when a person
0:52:29 looks at their mother or their children
0:52:32 you know they're not going to think well
0:52:33 they don't really exist all that exists
0:52:35 is this fundamental layer of reality
0:52:37 that's it it's just i've made it up in
0:52:40 my mind or somebody's made it up in
0:52:42 their mind yeah these things don't exist
0:52:45 yeah dinosaurs in the past didn't exist
0:52:47 it's just somebody's made it up and
0:52:49 named this particular configuration of
0:52:52 this fundamental particle and gave it a
0:52:54 name
0:52:55 so um yeah nobody accepts that
0:52:59 i think it's nonsense
0:53:01 no issans said an annoying comment
0:53:03 atheism is just the non-acceptance of a
0:53:05 god claim okay
0:53:09 it doesn't come with world views on
0:53:11 multiple subjects
0:53:15 i think yeah i think we should move on
0:53:16 guys because we're like
0:53:18 we're almost at an hour okay okay all
0:53:21 right so next thing we want to ask is uh
0:53:23 so does quantum mechanics show that
0:53:24 whatever begins to exist doesn't always
0:53:26 have a cause under copenhagen's
0:53:28 interpretation that can be
0:53:30 indeterministic events
0:53:32 on a quantum level
0:53:33 what are your thoughts go bam
0:53:35 quick concise as much as you can be on
0:53:38 such a complex topic
0:53:47 what was the question again hold on a
0:53:49 second copenhagen's interpreter
0:53:52 yes it doesn't quantum mechanics show
0:53:54 that whatever begins to exist
0:53:56 doesn't have a cause so like for example
0:53:58 in the copenhagen interpretation that
0:54:00 apparently there can be indeterministic
0:54:02 events on a quantum level
0:54:04 what would your answer be to that or you
0:54:06 want i can try
0:54:07 yeah no i mean i would just say very
0:54:10 briefly that
0:54:11 you trying first of all trying to use
0:54:13 quantum mechanics to prove anything
0:54:16 i think whether it be
0:54:18 uh and
0:54:19 to be fair some theists try to use
0:54:21 quantum mechanics as well
0:54:23 for some things related to god
0:54:25 it is it's an underdeveloped science you
0:54:28 know it's really in its uh infancy and
0:54:31 so to try to use quantum mechanics a
0:54:33 pretty something that's pretty much
0:54:35 unknown
0:54:36 to demonstrate something that's unknown
0:54:39 is just misplaced to begin with i mean
0:54:41 to try to
0:54:42 use it to demonstrate god's existence or
0:54:45 lack thereof or on any one of these
0:54:47 types of
0:54:49 premises i think is just a bad move from
0:54:51 the start
0:54:52 but nevertheless with
0:54:54 copenhagen's uh interpretation and what
0:54:56 you're talking about indeterminacy
0:54:59 are just saying that there are certain
0:55:01 things
0:55:02 at now anyway that we we can't narrow
0:55:05 down exactly what the sufficient cause
0:55:09 for a particular event is
0:55:11 but it doesn't then follow from that
0:55:13 that there is no cause yeah it doesn't
0:55:16 this assumption that's being made on the
0:55:18 person who's objecting to it like and
0:55:21 this is you know to be honest some you
0:55:23 see some physicists and scientists make
0:55:26 similar claims it's like where are you
0:55:28 guys getting this from quantum mechanics
0:55:29 doesn't throw causality out of the
0:55:32 window it doesn't say that it's not a
0:55:35 causal or meaning necessarily without a
0:55:37 cause
0:55:38 there is a cause right there's an
0:55:40 indeterministic or probabilistic cause
0:55:44 but there's not from what we can tell
0:55:46 anyway at this point it's not
0:55:48 deterministic
0:55:49 but there's a key thing that people need
0:55:51 to understand
0:55:53 indeterministic causation does not equal
0:55:56 no causation or a causal and the problem
0:56:00 is when they conflate the two no there's
0:56:02 a distinction there's a cause but it's a
0:56:05 probabilistic one
0:56:06 and maybe at this point anyway and maybe
0:56:09 there's some other further information
0:56:10 that is missing to show how it
0:56:12 necessarily follows we're not sure about
0:56:14 that yet and there are even some
0:56:16 deterministic uh interpretations of
0:56:19 quantum mechanics even up until this
0:56:20 point that some physicists will defend
0:56:23 so again i think
0:56:25 it's really trying to use an unknown
0:56:28 uh to discuss a premise or undermine a
0:56:31 premise that is pretty much well
0:56:32 established which i think is
0:56:34 wrong-headed to begin with and then even
0:56:36 then
0:56:37 it's misunderstanding and conflating
0:56:39 indeterministic causation with no
0:56:42 causation or a causal which is just not
0:56:44 accurate
0:56:46 yeah yeah can i add to that
0:56:48 i think one of the biggest issues as
0:56:50 well is with regards to how
0:56:54 when you
0:56:55 sort of reduce the quantum mechanics you
0:56:57 have to talk with mathematics and
0:57:00 mathematics generally tends to make
0:57:03 things seem more equal than they
0:57:05 actually are so for example if we're
0:57:06 talking about
0:57:08 pens
0:57:09 like we have three pens here and you
0:57:12 know you can
0:57:13 describe them both with the num oh well
0:57:15 all three of them with the number one so
0:57:16 this is one unit this is one unit and
0:57:19 this is one unit now the issue with that
0:57:21 is so far as you're only talking about
0:57:24 them
0:57:24 in terms of that mathematical unit that
0:57:27 is one they all look
0:57:29 absolutely identical when you're talking
0:57:31 about them only in math so you have one
0:57:33 plus one plus one
0:57:35 equals three
0:57:36 but you know
0:57:38 you can't really make a distinction
0:57:39 between us you're a trinitarian but
0:57:41 that's another story oh yeah
0:57:42Laughter 0:57:45 it's a sly dig there on the way in by
0:57:47 the way
0:57:49 are those are those necessary or those
0:57:51 contingent those pens
0:57:53 good questions no matter how many there
0:57:54 are or maybe maybe one of them it's
0:57:56 possible necessary the other one is
0:57:58 possible i don't know the other ones are
0:57:59 right it depends how you define it yeah
0:58:01 i was just fine
0:58:04 um but the point is is in so far as
0:58:05 you're looking at these three things in
0:58:07 terms of representing them with
0:58:09 mathematics
0:58:11 you lose a lot of what makes them
0:58:12 distinct and so for example
0:58:15 um you know if one of these was to be
0:58:17 picked up rather than the other
0:58:19 you might not be able to see wine you
0:58:20 might say well you know it's just simply
0:58:22 probabilistic
0:58:23 maybe it's only the fact that you know
0:58:26 there's two of them so there's a 50 50
0:58:28 chance that that one got picked over
0:58:29 that one
0:58:30 but there might be other information so
0:58:32 i might like red more than i like green
0:58:35 or
0:58:36 obviously that's to do with a conscious
0:58:38 um
0:58:39 cause but when it comes to the
0:58:40 unconscious causes um
0:58:43 when you're talking about
0:58:45 quantum mechanics when you're talking
0:58:46 about the fundamental atoms and why for
0:58:48 example um one half of an atom
0:58:50 deteriorates rather than the other it
0:58:53 the problem simply could just be that
0:58:55 well when you're looking at these things
0:58:57 you're talking about something so small
0:58:59 you can't see it
0:59:01 so you have to use
0:59:02 representations you have to use
0:59:04 mathematics and this reduces it to
0:59:06 something which hides the distinctions
0:59:09 necessarily when you're talking about
0:59:11 things in terms of mathematics if you're
0:59:12 talking about these two things as simply
0:59:14 being one and one
0:59:16 you have to miss out all of the other
0:59:18 things which might be
0:59:20 the reason why one half deteriorates
0:59:22 rather than the other
0:59:23 and you're just not going to be able to
0:59:25 see that because of these very very
0:59:27 minutes differences that we just haven't
0:59:30 got equipment with the accuracy to be
0:59:32 able to see them um so
0:59:35 yeah i would say that's one of the big
0:59:37 problems is that
0:59:38 you know when people are dealing with
0:59:39 quantum mechanics they have to look at
0:59:41 it
0:59:41 through the lens of mathematics and this
0:59:44 hires a lot of the distinctions between
0:59:45 things
0:59:47 yeah so just to reiterate as well the
0:59:49 point uh so
0:59:51 there's different interpretations that
0:59:52 currently the most popular one is the
0:59:54 copenhagen interpretation of quantum
0:59:56 mechanics but prior to that the von
0:59:58 neumann wigner interpretation was
1:00:00 considered uh you know in the 1950s i
1:00:02 think it's 40s or 50s was considered
1:00:04 extremely popular which is that
1:00:06 conscious agents causes the collapse of
1:00:09 the um
1:00:11 of the wave particle yeah uh function or
1:00:13 the wave function into a particle uh
1:00:15 similarly you have the pilot wave uh
1:00:18 interpretation also known as the
1:00:21 bohmian interpretation of quantum
1:00:24 mechanics again it's fringe it's not
1:00:25 like the most popular one but there are
1:00:27 different interpretations regards to
1:00:29 this um that's first thing second thing
1:00:31 is this is that i don't see this as a
1:00:33 challenge anyway uh to
1:00:35 the idea of causality because if
1:00:38 causality is simply something that you
1:00:41 derive through experience there may be
1:00:44 but i would say that causality is more
1:00:47 axiomatic
1:00:48 to the scientific method and so if it's
1:00:51 axiomatic even if in the physical world
1:00:54 we don't experience a particular thing
1:00:56 having a cause
1:00:57 you i a materialistic cause that's the
1:01:00 key point a materialistic cause it
1:01:02 doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause it
1:01:04 would be a non-materialistic cause yeah
1:01:07 if you then deny any form of causality
1:01:11 then what you're then going to deny is
1:01:13 you're going to deny one of the key
1:01:14 axioms of the scientific method and if
1:01:17 you're denying one of the key axioms of
1:01:18 scientific method then that's going to
1:01:20 undermine its conclusion and if the
1:01:22 conclusion is to deny causality then
1:01:24 you're going to ultimately it's a
1:01:26 self-defeating argument yeah so
1:01:29 if the scientific method requires
1:01:31 causation to come to a conclusion
1:01:33 and you use a scientific method
1:01:35 using causality and you come to a
1:01:37 conclusion there is no causality you
1:01:39 undermine the method in itself yeah
1:01:42 that's fundamental uh a fundamental
1:01:44 problem uh regards to this the other
1:01:46 point which is what jake also mentioned
1:01:48 which is that you're not talking about
1:01:50 true
1:01:51 randomness where there is absolutely no
1:01:54 causality that's taking place rather
1:01:57 what they're saying is that there are
1:01:59 necessary conditions but maybe not
1:02:01 necessarily sufficient conditions for a
1:02:04 particular event so the decay of uh
1:02:07 uranium atoms that will decay uh you
1:02:10 know if you've got two uranium atoms
1:02:12 here
1:02:13 and uh you know they're radioactive and
1:02:15 they'll decay at different rates and you
1:02:17 don't know why one's decaying at one
1:02:18 particular rate over another particular
1:02:20 rate but if you take it over a period of
1:02:22 time that will equal itself out and so
1:02:24 therefore probabilistically they remain
1:02:26 pretty much the same
1:02:28 but you're not gonna have you know other
1:02:30 atoms yeah like lead being radioactive
1:02:34 so there are constraints as to what
1:02:36 causes effects
1:02:38 even if the effect is indeterministic or
1:02:41 you know there's a
1:02:43 probabilistic way there's still
1:02:45 constraints
1:02:46 so therefore there are still
1:02:47 quote-unquote explanations or causes
1:02:50 uh for the decay of the accident it's
1:02:52 just the fact that we don't have precise
1:02:54 information or a materialistic
1:02:57 information about a sufficient condition
1:02:59 as to when one atom decays or a
1:03:01 particular decay of a particular
1:03:03 particle alpha particle whatever it is
1:03:06 uh occurs uh compared to another one of
1:03:08 the equivalent um uh any amount yeah so
1:03:12 hopefully that's clear so i don't think
1:03:14 it undermines the first premise of the
1:03:16 kca
1:03:21 you're muted bro
1:03:22 yusuf you muted abdul rahman did you
1:03:24 want to add anything to that or should
1:03:26 we move on to the next one are you happy
1:03:27 with what's been said
1:03:29 no i just um
1:03:31 i mean i i i
1:03:32 i can't be bothered to be honest anyone
1:03:34 who denies the first premise i'm like
1:03:36 okay let's just let's part ways
1:03:38 are you able to continue brother i i i'm
1:03:41 okay i'm okay you lost all penalties
1:03:43 come on we've got seven of them
1:03:48 so so yeah i'm fine i'm fine but yeah
1:03:51 really anybody anybody who does deny the
1:03:54 the first premise
1:03:55 i mean you can go through all this stuff
1:03:57 right and and uh
1:03:59 and
1:04:00 even if you you you can talk about like
1:04:02 indeterministic causation you could talk
1:04:03 about a causal processes and stuff like
1:04:05 that
1:04:06 um
1:04:07 and fine i'll be like okay well if
1:04:09 you're willing to to to you know
1:04:12 entertain that possibility but that's
1:04:15 okay i mean we can go with the
1:04:16 contingency argument we can talk about
1:04:17 explanation uh or we we could talk about
1:04:20 the implications of you rejecting some
1:04:21 sort of causal or explanatory principle
1:04:23 that kind of you know makes any of of of
1:04:28 of your
1:04:29 your surroundings uh you know
1:04:31 meaningfully intelligible so so um
1:04:35 uh
1:04:36 the quantum i don't think quantum
1:04:38 mechanics is a good place to go at all
1:04:39 but uh yeah so i think we can move past
1:04:41 the first premise because
1:04:43 i don't think the objections are i mean
1:04:45 me personally i just don't i don't fancy
1:04:47 taking them seriously
1:04:49 i keep seeing annoying comments i don't
1:04:51 know if this is completely out of
1:04:52 context with someone they're saying
1:04:54 causation does not equal god
1:05:00 yeah
1:05:00 yeah this other guy is saying there's
1:05:02 other guys saying
1:05:03 search or google what
1:05:05 physicists respond to the clown
1:05:07 cosmological i mean come on let's um
1:05:09 i mean this is primarily a philosophical
1:05:12 argument
1:05:13 so
1:05:14 yes we can address that quickly as well
1:05:16 because this was the same problem that
1:05:17 jake had with uh what's his name skydive
1:05:21 phil where skydive phil kept wanting to
1:05:24 appeal to scientific evidence and he's
1:05:26 like oh you know
1:05:27 scientists
1:05:29 the scientific evidence that doesn't
1:05:31 uh prove the second premise of the kalam
1:05:34 and he kept going on and on and on about
1:05:35 that and what he did is he was like oh
1:05:37 look there's loads of scientists over
1:05:38 here um that disagree with the second
1:05:41 premise it's like yeah all right but
1:05:43 does that show
1:05:45 has that been shown conclusively
1:05:47 the answer to the question is no and so
1:05:49 it's like right so science isn't going
1:05:51 to help us with the second premise so
1:05:53 what else do we have available we have
1:05:55 philosophy so what we can do is we can
1:05:57 talk about the philosophical problems
1:05:59 with regards to
1:06:01 um you know reasons for or against the
1:06:04 second premise but then he just refuses
1:06:06 to go into it he said no no no you know
1:06:08 i'm into this so basically he wants to
1:06:10 focus on something that gives no clarity
1:06:12 on the subject in order to sort of
1:06:14 postulate agnosticism on that as some
1:06:16 sort of superior position when he admits
1:06:19 himself that he can't go into the
1:06:20 philosophy of it even though the answers
1:06:22 might actually be more clear if you go
1:06:24 into it and discuss the arguments on a
1:06:26 more fundamental level so it's just okay
1:06:30 anybody who goes to a field as like we
1:06:32 haven't scratched the surface of quantum
1:06:34 mechanics
1:06:36 there's so much we don't know i mean
1:06:38 um
1:06:39 i mean it's a baby field you know
1:06:40 anything there's so many different
1:06:42 interpretations of quantum mechanics
1:06:43 anyway so for someone to appeal to that
1:06:46 you know in a philosophical discussion
1:06:47 where you have a premise that basically
1:06:50 points to one of the most obvious
1:06:52 principles
1:06:54 in
1:06:55 human existence
1:06:56 and that is required for for
1:06:59 for knowledge
1:07:00 uh it's just a it's a bit desperate
1:07:02 that's why i i i
1:07:04 i i don't know i i don't really take it
1:07:07 seriously
1:07:08 so somebody asking the real questions
1:07:10 what's sharif's ethnicity
1:07:22 he goes but causality is understood in
1:07:25 terms of sufficient conditions not
1:07:26 necessary conditions so one can grant
1:07:29 necessary conditions while still
1:07:30 maintaining an a causal nature of the
1:07:32 phenomenon yeah
1:07:34 so somebody's asked that question so leo
1:07:37 whatever his name is yeah yeah i'm 52.
1:07:40 oh that's just assuming that you need a
1:07:43 type of contrastive explanation or to
1:07:45 say that something is
1:07:47 uh necessary in order to explain
1:07:50 that uh
1:07:51 there's causation so it's basically
1:07:53 assuming a particular view of causation
1:07:55 which we don't need to accept
1:07:58 first of all and second of all
1:08:00 again just because
1:08:02 we have not determined what the
1:08:04 necessary condition for
1:08:06 some of these events are doesn't mean
1:08:08 that there isn't one we're just not sure
1:08:10 about it
1:08:12 yeah i agree and i think i'm sorry
1:08:14 efficient yeah yeah and the the point is
1:08:17 this is that when you look for an
1:08:19 explanation for why something occurs yes
1:08:22 so why there is a radioactive material
1:08:25 you know uh let's say your geiger
1:08:27 counter and this is probably a good
1:08:29 example your guide count which measures
1:08:31 radioactive radioactivity why that's
1:08:34 suddenly going off yeah
1:08:36 now
1:08:36 you're not going to think well it's
1:08:38 indeterministic
1:08:40 it just goes off sometimes it's a causal
1:08:43 you're going to think no there's a cause
1:08:44 the cause is some radioactive material
1:08:47 now if you then say okay why is it
1:08:49 radioactive this particular material
1:08:51 radioactive as opposed to lead yeah
1:08:54 which is not radioactive then you're
1:08:56 going to say well because this has
1:08:57 particular properties and features which
1:08:59 is different to this particular thing
1:09:01 that's properties and features so you're
1:09:02 still looking for explanations and
1:09:04 causes behind events you're not going
1:09:07 outside of that paradigm that's first
1:09:09 thing secondly and it goes back to the
1:09:11 point that i thought mentioned at the
1:09:12 beginning which is that causality i see
1:09:14 this as a necessary axiom within the
1:09:17 scientific method you deny it you deny
1:09:20 the scientific method what you can
1:09:22 conclude may be at best is that there is
1:09:25 no materialistic explanation
1:09:28 or materialistic cause yeah and i know
1:09:31 jake doesn't like it but if you're an
1:09:33 occasionalist
1:09:34 that's fine because that's ultimately
1:09:36 where you're going to go to ultimately
1:09:38 the foundation of reality is that you
1:09:41 need the explanation outside of the
1:09:44 universe and materialism by
1:09:45 non-naturalist explanation to explain
1:09:48 why events within the universe occurred
1:09:50 so if you have a causal events yeah on a
1:09:54 subatomic you know quantum level
1:09:57 then
1:09:58 you know which
1:09:59 means that there is no further
1:10:02 materialistic explanation it's not
1:10:04 saying it's truly a cause it means that
1:10:06 the cause is actually outside it's
1:10:09 non-naturalistic and again
1:10:11 you know just to reiterate this point
1:10:14 because quantum mechanics always comes
1:10:15 up
1:10:16 you're gonna have to explain why in a
1:10:18 macro level you have causality if the
1:10:22 fundamental layer of the universe is a
1:10:25 causal in a fundamental way i watched
1:10:28 that skydive phil's
1:10:30 video yeah i know i shouldn't but i did
1:10:33 it
1:10:34 with his critique and he was asked you
1:10:37 know somebody's there saying can tigers
1:10:39 come out of nothing and he goes and they
1:10:41 get this one scientist goes well you
1:10:42 know probability says that yes there is
1:10:45 a low probability for tigers to come out
1:10:48 of nothingness
1:10:50 to be that it's a greater probability
1:10:52 for a universe i'm like
1:10:55 yeah it just sounds one it sounds crazy
1:10:57 too it breaks the axiom axioms of
1:11:00 science yeah i see
1:11:02 yeah and really all you're concluding at
1:11:06 best at best is a lack of materialistic
1:11:10 causation
1:11:11 not the principle of causality in and of
1:11:13 itself
1:11:18 yeah yeah we should
1:11:20 i want to address this as well though so
1:11:22 someone said the muslims are
1:11:23 philosophically biased like it doesn't
1:11:27 what's what's that said that the
1:11:29 discussion um the blessed be he
1:11:32 it so first of all
1:11:33 just deal with what's being said like
1:11:36 address
1:11:37 the propositions that are being put
1:11:38 forward
1:11:40 don't just make these non-arguments
1:11:42 where you're like
1:11:43 biased like it doesn't help the
1:11:45 discussion along at all and it doesn't
1:11:47 refute anything that's being said at all
1:11:49 so it's completely pointless and not
1:11:52 worth anyone's time uh so moving on to
1:11:55 the next thing
1:11:57 um
1:11:58 here so there are different models in
1:12:00 cosmology for example
1:12:02 there's the idea that our universe
1:12:03 exists in a wider cosmos
1:12:05 and
1:12:06 although our region of the cosmos began
1:12:09 it doesn't mean that the cosmos as a
1:12:11 whole
1:12:11 began to exist or there's this uh cyclic
1:12:15 cyclical
1:12:16 uh conformal cosmology uh that was
1:12:19 proposed by people like penrose um what
1:12:22 would you say with regards that says
1:12:23 sort of alluding to this notion of like
1:12:25 a multiverse
1:12:26 um in which our universe
1:12:29 began to exist
1:12:32 that's more to do with purpose too right
1:12:34 yeah yeah we're moving on the premise
1:12:36 too but i think you skipped over the
1:12:38 inflation one
1:12:41 did i okay okay so let's move back
1:12:45 the universe began to exist uh
1:12:47 has a cause but science doesn't prove
1:12:50 the beginning of the universe
1:12:52 all it states is that there was a
1:12:54 beginning to inflation
1:12:56 or that there was a singularity how
1:12:58 would you respond to that
1:13:03 yeah uh i don't know
1:13:06 somebody else it's not mine
1:13:08 so if you mean that science doesn't say
1:13:10 there's a beginning in the sense that
1:13:12 well if you look at the scientific
1:13:13 theory you're not gonna
1:13:14 see
1:13:15 that scientists are explicitly saying oh
1:13:17 this means that the universe had a
1:13:20 beginning in the sense that it didn't
1:13:21 exist and that it existed
1:13:23 well finally why would you expect that
1:13:24 in the scientific theory scientific
1:13:26 theory just start describes you know the
1:13:29 beginning of a process you know
1:13:31 mathematically we've talked about
1:13:32 inflation
1:13:34 now now can you use scientific evidence
1:13:36 to within a philosophical
1:13:39 paradigm to
1:13:41 make you know inferences about uh
1:13:43 or as supporting evidence
1:13:46 yes of course
1:13:48 so so so so for example the
1:13:50 the the the premise the universe began
1:13:53 to exist right
1:13:55 assume this assume that these these you
1:13:58 know inflationary theories and and all
1:14:00 the work on inflation pointed to to the
1:14:02 fact that inflation in fact was eternal
1:14:07 or just assume the absence of the
1:14:10 evidence for the beginning of the
1:14:11 process of inflation
1:14:13 now
1:14:14 are these two
1:14:16 exactly the same with regard to how they
1:14:19 affect the likelihood of the premise the
1:14:21 universe began to exist
1:14:23 um
1:14:24 i mean i don't see how you can answer in
1:14:26 the affirmative clearly not
1:14:28 so so if the process has a beginning
1:14:31 then that gives more credence to the to
1:14:33 the to the premise that the universe
1:14:34 began to doesn't make it true it's just
1:14:37 that you have to acknowledge that at
1:14:38 least in the absence of it it's less
1:14:40 likely
1:14:41 or if if the inverse is true that you
1:14:44 know inflation is eternal then it's very
1:14:46 strong evidence against the idea that
1:14:48 the universe began to exist so so um
1:14:51 so to to say that the science doesn't
1:14:53 say that it's quite silly and this is
1:14:55 again
1:14:56 something that that
1:14:58 this is an approach that i think sean
1:14:59 carroll took in his debate with william
1:15:01 lane craig and and and again a lot of
1:15:03 people think that uh sean carroll won
1:15:05 that debate but really a lot of it was
1:15:08 just rhetoric and confidence and you
1:15:09 know john carroll has this way of uh
1:15:12 you know uh speaking with this air of
1:15:14 superiority but then if you really
1:15:16 analyze the content i think uh craig
1:15:18 definitely uh uh exposed uh you know
1:15:21 some a level of a level of philosophical
1:15:24 ignorance on on the part of um sean
1:15:26 carroll so sean carroll was had this
1:15:28 similar similar kind of objection and
1:15:30 and craig tells him just that i'm not
1:15:32 i'm not i'm not talking science in the
1:15:34 sense that you know i'm working from
1:15:35 within the scientific theory i'm using
1:15:38 the you know the conclusions or using
1:15:40 scientific data and within
1:15:42 you know a philosophical argument to see
1:15:44 whether it can be used as supplementary
1:15:46 evidence to
1:15:47 support my premises so
1:15:50 and this this objection is quite common
1:15:52 and it's uh
1:15:54 it's a bit uh shallow
1:16:00 you guys want to move on are we
1:16:02 commenting further on this point oh we
1:16:04 can move on have you muted yourself i
1:16:07 can't hear you
1:16:08 i was just going to say yeah i don't
1:16:09 think we should get everyone to comment
1:16:11 on every point um because it'll just
1:16:13 take forever
1:16:15 let's go through quick quite really
1:16:17 quickly
1:16:18 because day
1:16:20 at the end of the day
1:16:22 the whole discussion is irrelevant of
1:16:24 science my personal opinion is
1:16:26 irrelevant science is not going to
1:16:28 conclude that something of an infinite
1:16:30 nature exists because it can't do that
1:16:33 it can only what scientists can do is
1:16:35 they can sort of postulate the
1:16:37 implications of certain things yeah
1:16:40 but they could be philosophical they
1:16:42 have to they have to do philosophy
1:16:43 basically philosophy so how the whole
1:16:45 discussion becomes a philosophical
1:16:47 discussion the whole scientific
1:16:49 discussion is a red herring in all of
1:16:52 this yeah uh and i think that the
1:16:54 problem is that probably people like
1:16:56 william lane craig and
1:16:58 maybe others have tried to use as a and
1:17:00 they say is a supportive argument that's
1:17:03 fine yeah
1:17:05 and obviously actually they you know
1:17:07 when the first idea of the big bang came
1:17:09 about
1:17:10 uh you know it was like by a german
1:17:13 priest i think he was german priest
1:17:15 george lumatra
1:17:16 uh catholic priest anyway uh who came up
1:17:19 with the idea so the anyway the point
1:17:21 being is that it's just irrelevant if
1:17:23 it's used it's always used as a
1:17:24 supportive argument say the universe has
1:17:26 a beginning but even if science the
1:17:28 quote unquote the science says that old
1:17:29 steady state model whatever it is
1:17:32 so what yeah it doesn't really address
1:17:34 the real crux of the problem
1:17:38 that was my life so the next one was the
1:17:40 thing that i'd already um mentioned
1:17:42 earlier so there are different models in
1:17:43 cosmology for example there's the idea
1:17:45 that our universe exists in a wider
1:17:48 cosmos and although our region of the
1:17:50 cosmos began it doesn't mean that the
1:17:51 cosmos as a whole began to exist or
1:17:54 there's some sort of cyclical uh
1:17:56 conformal cosmology uh like that was
1:17:58 which was proposed by penrose how would
1:18:00 you respond to that
1:18:03 brother jake you want to begin
1:18:07 uh me no i'm the wrong person to ask on
1:18:10 that question
1:18:13 it's the same point that i mentioned
1:18:15 earlier which is that
1:18:16 all these different
1:18:18 philosophical it's like scientific
1:18:20 models
1:18:21 are premised upon a particular
1:18:23 philosophical idea yeah
1:18:26 and that has to be addressed so for
1:18:28 example conformal cyclic cosmology
1:18:32 you know ultimately is a form of an
1:18:34 infinite regress
1:18:36 yeah if you really want to look at it so
1:18:38 then you have to address that whether
1:18:39 that's a potential
1:18:41 um possibility or not
1:18:44 um similarly you know arguments about
1:18:46 the universe coming out of a
1:18:49 you know state of non-existence well
1:18:51 okay but is it really a state of
1:18:53 non-existence or is it a state of
1:18:55 fluctuating energy or whether the rules
1:18:57 of quantum products exist so it's not
1:18:59 literally a causal from nothingness but
1:19:02 it's rather within the paradigm of
1:19:05 certain causes and explanations so i
1:19:09 think these scientific whenever people
1:19:10 bring up science
1:19:12 uh if you're going to defend the
1:19:14 argument you have to defend it from
1:19:15 philosophical groups not scientific
1:19:17 grounds because science will shift and
1:19:19 it is constantly shifting on the subject
1:19:21 and when it comes to the discussion
1:19:22 about what occurred before you know
1:19:24 planck's time you know the first place
1:19:26 time whatever
1:19:27 or before inflation is very speculative
1:19:30 is highly speculative and it will
1:19:32 constantly move and shift in terms of uh
1:19:36 any uh what the science will say
1:19:39 yeah
1:19:40 yeah that just touches on the philosophy
1:19:42 of science isn't it so that
1:19:44 the epistemology of science is that it
1:19:46 makes inferences the best explanation
1:19:48 based on the available evidence and so
1:19:51 it cannot make absolute claims because
1:19:52 new evidence can always come about which
1:19:54 causes a shift
1:19:56 or a transformation or a revolution of
1:19:58 sorts
1:19:59 like what you see with the shift from
1:20:00 newtonian to einstein
1:20:03 from you know the the
1:20:05 i can't be bothered to go through all
1:20:06 the other examples but there's there's a
1:20:08 number of times where the science has
1:20:10 moved from one position to another and
1:20:12 even just thinking about whether or not
1:20:13 the universe has a beginning or an end
1:20:15 it's there's been at least four
1:20:17 shifts from thinking that it was finite
1:20:19 to then infinite to then finite again to
1:20:21 then infinite and so that means the
1:20:23 scientific method has at least
1:20:26 once held a false position based on the
1:20:29 available evidence
1:20:31 and so that's not to completely
1:20:33 undermine science to say that everything
1:20:35 science says is completely useless we're
1:20:37 not trying to um get people to move to
1:20:39 some sort of epistemological nihilism
1:20:41 far from it
1:20:43 it's it's fine to a certain degree to
1:20:45 accept the propositions unless you have
1:20:47 great reason to reject them
1:20:50 based on the available evidence because
1:20:51 you've not got anything else you can do
1:20:53 and so you know it can be reasonable
1:20:57 to a certain degree but you have to
1:20:58 understand
1:20:59 that it is limited in its scope and that
1:21:01 it's not like revelation it's not
1:21:04 absolute it's not information that comes
1:21:07 from an all-knowing infallible being um
1:21:09 no it's our finite attempts of exploring
1:21:12 the universe and with limited processing
1:21:14 capabilities trying to sort of gather
1:21:17 information and seeing how that fits
1:21:20 into the big picture
1:21:21 and so you know necessarily it follows
1:21:24 from that we make mistakes
1:21:26 um it's yeah a changing process but uh
1:21:30 do you want to say anything else on that
1:21:32 should we move to the next one
1:21:34 yeah we can move on and show that i mean
1:21:36 it's uh
1:21:37 so pretty
1:21:38 just the point just emphasize your point
1:21:40 yourself it's a very highly speculative
1:21:43 position the discussion about the
1:21:45 beginnings of the universe it's it would
1:21:48 not be you know none of the
1:21:50 quote-unquote models would ever be
1:21:52 considered a scientific theory yeah best
1:21:54 the hypothesis that's it yeah
1:21:58 yeah and to just answer math you
1:22:00 badasses always says yes the science is
1:22:01 constantly changing therefore
1:22:02 agnosticism about the nature of the
1:22:04 universe is justified is it not no not
1:22:06 if you've got like for example would you
1:22:07 say that um the the age of the universe
1:22:11 is a position where agnosticism is more
1:22:14 justified than say oh well you know
1:22:16 theory of evil __  1:22:19 or even
1:22:20 yeah like any of them like is it
1:22:22 necessarily the case that agnosticism is
1:22:25 better um like so for example if we
1:22:27 stick with the the age of the universe
1:22:29 being whatever it is what thirteen point
1:22:31 eight or thirteen boys at fourteen
1:22:32 billion years old um
1:22:35 you know is that a justified position or
1:22:37 should you be agnostic about it and say
1:22:39 no not at all even if they have a lot of
1:22:42 evidence that leans towards it um and
1:22:44 you've got no other greater reason to
1:22:46 deny it completely
1:22:48 um why should you remain agnostic about
1:22:51 that simply because there might be
1:22:53 possibly some information that comes out
1:22:55 later on that says no actually it's 14.1
1:22:57 billion years old or 13.2 no you just
1:23:00 you say this is the conclusion that the
1:23:02 evidence is put forward so far and you
1:23:04 just hold a soft claim on it you say
1:23:06 that it is possible that new information
1:23:08 can come out which might reinterpret or
1:23:10 give a different answer in the end but
1:23:12 insofar as this is what the data is
1:23:13 saying at the moment and it's you know
1:23:15 it's not that big a deal but you just
1:23:16 can't hold on to it absolutely
1:23:19 that's the thing it doesn't justify you
1:23:21 through all possibility of uh getting
1:23:24 any knowledge completely out the window
1:23:26 um
1:23:28 do you guys sell thought adventure
1:23:29 podcast merch we've been trying to get
1:23:31 that sorted for a while but
1:23:42 is forming an actual infinite by
1:23:44 successive edition a logical
1:23:47 contradiction i want to hear from jake
1:23:49 now
1:23:51 give us an answer jake
1:23:53 you got 30 seconds you said is it a
1:23:56 logical contradiction you said
1:23:58 yes it's forming an actual infinite by
1:24:00 successive addition a logical
1:24:02 contradiction
1:24:05 yeah so i mean this is something that we
1:24:07 discussed um
1:24:10 with malpass when we were discussing
1:24:12 actual infinites and
1:24:15 this idea of
1:24:17 uh i know i know it's the next question
1:24:19 about the
1:24:21 the endless series with an ending uh
1:24:24 versus a beginning uh the series with an
1:24:27 ending but
1:24:28 it's related
1:24:30 if you're talking about
1:24:32 if you're talking about having a a
1:24:34 series that um
1:24:37 you get to infinity by successive
1:24:39 edition and it had a beginning then yeah
1:24:41 i don't think that's ever going to
1:24:43 happen and that is uh definitely
1:24:45 problematic i think even most people who
1:24:49 think that
1:24:50 you know that the second premise is
1:24:52 false or disagree with the philosophical
1:24:55 arguments they're not going to really
1:24:57 dispute or debate that
1:24:59 um the question is can you can you
1:25:02 arrive at
1:25:03 an actual infinite by successive edition
1:25:06 from a beginningless series with an
1:25:09 ending uh i don't think that that's
1:25:11 going to work either because
1:25:13 just as we saw with malpass
1:25:15 in actual fact
1:25:17 you're you're not really forming an
1:25:20 actual incident by success of addition
1:25:22 because at every moment in the past
1:25:25 prior to
1:25:26 whenever you say you've reached infinity
1:25:28 you've already counted an infinite
1:25:31 amount of numbers so you're never really
1:25:33 reaching infinity by successive addition
1:25:36 or through some type of formation or
1:25:38 accrual you're always at infinity at
1:25:42 every moment in the past so
1:25:44 that calls into question it doesn't
1:25:46 really seem like there is
1:25:47 a genuine success of addition at which
1:25:50 you're arriving or forming this actual
1:25:52 infinite no at every moment in the past
1:25:55 prior to it there already has been an
1:25:58 actual infinite occurring so yeah i
1:26:00 don't see how um in either scenario it's
1:26:03 gonna work
1:26:04 maybe sorry i think
1:26:06 there was uh maybe just to clarify why
1:26:09 we're asking this question actually
1:26:11 because the real argument for the
1:26:13 beginning of the universe is to say that
1:26:15 the number of events
1:26:17 yeah of the universe had to be finite
1:26:19 had to have it therefore if it had to be
1:26:21 finite the universe had to have a
1:26:23 beginning in the past where that's 13.78
1:26:26 billion years ago
1:26:28 or some christians believe six thousand
1:26:29 years ago whatever it is here
1:26:32 um
1:26:32 there had to be a finite past if there
1:26:35 was a finite past it meant the universe
1:26:37 began to exist it's temporal if the
1:26:40 universe began to exist and it was
1:26:42 temporal then as a result you know we're
1:26:45 looking for a cause so i've been asked
1:26:47 the context of the question but abdul
1:26:49 rahman's got some thought is it a
1:26:51 logical
1:26:52 contradiction to say forming an actual
1:26:55 infinite through successive edition
1:26:57 oh no abduction no no
1:26:59 no i don't i don't think
1:27:01 it depends on depends on like uh
1:27:05 like
1:27:06 it depends on how you
1:27:07 want to frame it in terms of like the
1:27:09 argument you're presenting
1:27:11 uh but uh in the case of what you said
1:27:13 about like the beginningless series
1:27:16 um no i don't think that's a logical
1:27:18 impossibility you could you could say
1:27:19 it's a metaphysical impossibility based
1:27:20 on other considerations but not a
1:27:22 logical one
1:27:24 um
1:27:25 i i do think it's it is okay
1:27:28 sorry really quickly before we talk
1:27:29 about beginning this series ending can
1:27:32 is it a logical possibility to say you
1:27:35 could have a actual infinite form
1:27:38 through successive edition
1:27:41 well you see the thing is um
1:27:45 uh um
1:27:47 finite
1:27:48 okay so the thing is
1:27:49 going to be this
1:27:51 whether this is
1:27:52 metaphysical or logical in the sense
1:27:54 that you see when you're talking about
1:27:55 forming it you're talking about stuff
1:27:57 like time
1:27:59 you're gonna have to bring into
1:28:00 consideration metaphysical you know
1:28:02 considerations like dependency and
1:28:04 causation stuff that's why a lot of
1:28:06 people would phrase it as like a
1:28:08 metaphysical impossibility but then um
1:28:12 i think that's sufficient i mean who
1:28:14 else and and i think
1:28:15 virtually everybody like across the
1:28:17 board agrees that you cannot like you
1:28:19 know begin counting
1:28:22 and complete an actual infinite uh you
1:28:24 know
1:28:25 numbers so everybody agrees nobody
1:28:27 disagrees the question is really whether
1:28:29 you want to call that a logical
1:28:30 possibility a metaphysical possibility i
1:28:32 think it's a metaphysical impossibility
1:28:34 based on the the nature of the way
1:28:36 you're um well but maybe you can present
1:28:38 the argument away where you'll have like
1:28:39 an actual contradiction so it just leads
1:28:41 to a contradiction given certain
1:28:42 considerations right so so
1:28:45 i don't know i think the the important
1:28:47 thing is that it's obviously impossible
1:28:49 to begin a series
1:28:52 and traverse an actual infinite right
1:28:55 given uh obviously certain metaphysical
1:28:56 assumptions so so that's that's just
1:28:59 obvious that's there's no arguing there
1:29:04 now the question really comes with what
1:29:05 jake said about the beginning of the
1:29:06 series right though
1:29:07 there was no beginning so well is it
1:29:09 possible
1:29:11 and really okay and so in this case you
1:29:14 don't have the same problem in the sense
1:29:15 that the the form of the argument i mean
1:29:17 there's no real problem because there is
1:29:18 a beginningless series it's just apart
1:29:21 from the fact that it's very difficult
1:29:22 to imagine what it means to be
1:29:23 beginninglessly counting
1:29:25 there there doesn't seem to be a an
1:29:27 issue
1:29:28 apart from like again what we raised
1:29:30 with milepass of the explanation you
1:29:32 know psr and the whole like well why are
1:29:35 you counting this specific number right
1:29:37 now when you had an infinite amount of
1:29:39 time
1:29:40 to count every single number in the
1:29:42 sense that
1:29:43 you had enough time to count whatever
1:29:45 number you're
1:29:46 uttering at this at this moment
1:29:49 and
1:29:50 and i think that's that that is a a a
1:29:53 good objection
1:29:54 um
1:29:56 uh
1:29:57 but really essentially what we do talk
1:29:59 about when when it comes to defense of
1:30:00 premise two
1:30:02 it's important for people to know
1:30:03 because we were talking about the
1:30:04 science like the main defense of it is
1:30:06 philosophical really i mean it's only
1:30:08 people waited for like philosophical
1:30:09 advancements in the 21st century
1:30:12 to start realizing oh hey there must be
1:30:14 a beginning to this thing no i mean i
1:30:15 think it's been
1:30:16 pretty a pretty reasonable position to
1:30:20 hold for for for a very long time
1:30:22 uh and and uh the main defense of it is
1:30:25 philosophical and what we often talk
1:30:27 about that doesn't really isn't really
1:30:29 concerned with this whole successful
1:30:30 edition argument is causal financing
1:30:33 and causes little feminism does seem
1:30:35 like a very plausible position given
1:30:37 certain considerations given the
1:30:39 implications of some uh you know some of
1:30:42 these benedetti paradoxes like the um
1:30:45 uh
1:30:46 like the ross's urn and and and and uh
1:30:48 and the whole um
1:30:50 a few other paradoxes like like the like
1:30:52 the light bulb paradox and stuff like
1:30:54 that a lot some philosophers just not
1:30:56 just like theists who want you know
1:30:58 there to be a
1:31:00 finite number of of of elements in a
1:31:02 chain of causation so they can say ah
1:31:04 god must have started it no a lot of uh
1:31:07 a lot of uh philosophers who are
1:31:09 non-theists
1:31:10 accept the position of causal feminism
1:31:12 and that and and i think that is
1:31:13 sufficient for you to run a calam
1:31:14 cosmological argument
1:31:16 it's it's it's uh it's it's enough you
1:31:18 don't have to take the craig route where
1:31:20 you want to just
1:31:22 uh you know get rid of infinities all
1:31:24 together
1:31:25 yeah so i just want to just sort of
1:31:27 because you made a lot of points and i
1:31:28 just want to quickly summarize some of
1:31:29 the place so the first thing you said is
1:31:31 and i think jake mentioned this point as
1:31:33 well is
1:31:34 talking about ending an endless series
1:31:38 doesn't make sense whether you want to
1:31:40 call that a logical contradiction or
1:31:42 metaphysical contradiction that doesn't
1:31:44 make sense the second thing is and
1:31:46 malpas malpass who doesn't really take
1:31:48 this idea of metaphysical impossibility
1:31:50 believes that's impossible you can't end
1:31:52 an endless series i think he sees that
1:31:54 as a logical contradiction
1:31:56 but what he will say and what other
1:31:58 people say but we're not ending an
1:32:00 endless series we're not counting
1:32:03 we're not starting from one
1:32:05 limited point and trying to get to an
1:32:07 unlimited point we start we don't even
1:32:10 start yeah we don't we have a
1:32:13 beginningless series
1:32:15 and then we end so it's different it's
1:32:17 different saying ending an endless
1:32:18 series
1:32:20 so we don't have a beginning and we end
1:32:22 it goes therefore that's a possibility
1:32:24 just conceivably it's possible according
1:32:27 to what malpractice is trying to argue
1:32:28 for or these people are trying to argue
1:32:30 but what you said
1:32:32 is
1:32:34 you need to account
1:32:36 for every time a person's a particular
1:32:38 number or you need to account for why
1:32:41 that person finished the series at this
1:32:44 moment as opposed to any other moment
1:32:46 because for example if we take this idea
1:32:49 that we are living at the very edge of
1:32:51 time maybe if we're a theorist of time
1:32:53 yeah
1:32:54 then we're at the very end of time
1:32:57 so why did we get to this moment 13.78
1:33:00 billion years or whatever it is yeah why
1:33:03 do we get to this moment at this time
1:33:05 what's the explanation
1:33:06 if we had 13.78 billion years
1:33:09 uh as a finite pass we can say well the
1:33:12 reason why we got to this moment is
1:33:14 because it took 13.78 billion years
1:33:17 yeah
1:33:18 so we've got an explanation but a
1:33:20 beginningless series doesn't have an
1:33:22 explanation as to why we got to this end
1:33:25 moment in time yeah and that violates
1:33:28 you know a number of things but one of
1:33:30 the key things would be psi isn't it
1:33:32 principle of sufficient reason the
1:33:34 second thing the third thing that you
1:33:35 said which i think is so critical in
1:33:37 this
1:33:38 is irrespective of the debates about
1:33:41 actual infinite
1:33:42 you're talking about well really the
1:33:44 real issue is causal finitism
1:33:46 can a series of causes
1:33:49 yeah can that go back for uh forever
1:33:52 yeah can that you know infinitely
1:33:55 regress or
1:33:57 you know can you have causal infinitism
1:33:59 or does
1:34:01 the the series of causes require some
1:34:04 sort of closure have to have a beginning
1:34:06 causal finitism and you mentioned these
1:34:08 points about bernadette's paradoxes i
1:34:11 think grim reaper paradoxes thompson
1:34:13 lamp paradox
1:34:15 and various others that have been used
1:34:16 and i think it was also raised to
1:34:17 malpass as well who although he
1:34:20 critiques
1:34:21 the was it patchwork principle uh for
1:34:23 forming these particular scenarios he
1:34:26 himself appeals or i think he leans
1:34:29 towards causal finitism anyway
1:34:31 is that right
1:34:32 yeah yeah yeah i i believe he does and
1:34:35 it's something else that's very
1:34:36 important to mention in in the case of
1:34:38 infinities
1:34:39 uh like so so when you have like the the
1:34:41 whole um hilbert's hotel
1:34:44 scenario right where you have weird
1:34:46 things happening in liberty hotel
1:34:48 uh like you know the the the hotel being
1:34:51 completely full yet still having the
1:34:53 capacity to accommodate an infinite
1:34:55 number of more guests and all the weird
1:34:58 stuff that that go
1:35:00 that come along with a hilbert's hotel
1:35:02 now the the the normal response here is
1:35:05 or the most like most uh reasonable
1:35:08 response i think is from their side or
1:35:11 from somebody even theists who don't
1:35:13 accept that an actual information
1:35:14 possible is that well these situations
1:35:17 are just counterintuitive
1:35:19 it doesn't mean it doesn't mean that
1:35:20 it's false in the sense that the actual
1:35:23 infinite doesn't have to uh you know
1:35:26 be in line with your intuitions so
1:35:29 so so that's that now i i guess that
1:35:31 what that assumes though is that
1:35:34 you can't use your intuition
1:35:37 at all
1:35:38 as a justifier for taking a certain
1:35:39 position
1:35:40 i mean
1:35:42 some people
1:35:44 might want to bite the bullet and say
1:35:45 well that's just how infinities work
1:35:46 like ben daddy himself
1:35:48 uh who are these paradoxes but other
1:35:51 people
1:35:53 and and many people do this they did
1:35:54 they're like no i don't want
1:35:57 such weird things in my ontology
1:36:00 and both are making different choices
1:36:02 uh um now now uh it's it's it seems like
1:36:07 you'll you're you you would really be
1:36:08 begging the question for a specific you
1:36:10 know
1:36:11 epistemic approach if you're like well
1:36:13 hey you wait you can't you can't just
1:36:14 because it's counterintuitive you can't
1:36:16 say it's false i mean that why
1:36:18 so so clearly our intuitions can be used
1:36:21 as guides
1:36:23 to to to taking certain positions and
1:36:25 learning about the world
1:36:26 and now that's not an unrestricted
1:36:28 principle in the sense that yes your
1:36:29 intuition something can be wrong but in
1:36:32 a careful and restricted fashion you can
1:36:34 take certain positions about a
1:36:37 certain questions
1:36:38 so so um so that's that's a very
1:36:40 important part to know
1:36:42 this is my issue regardless of this
1:36:43 point uh
1:36:45 the idea that okay these intuitions
1:36:47 you know it seems absurd yeah oh no it
1:36:50 seems it is absurd it is absurd you know
1:36:52 the idea of hilbert's hotel the idea of
1:36:55 uh
1:36:56 uh you know actual infinites formed by
1:36:59 successive edition or formed by
1:37:01 quantized or you know uh things yeah
1:37:04 things which can be you know
1:37:06 discrete particles added together and
1:37:08 you create an actual infinite of
1:37:10 particles whatever it is yeah
1:37:12 now for a person to turn around and say
1:37:14 yeah but you know we have justification
1:37:17 that it can occur
1:37:19 for me
1:37:20 their justification that it can occur
1:37:22 has to be more than just the mere
1:37:23 possibility or the lack of a logical
1:37:26 contradiction
1:37:28 he has to do more work for me
1:37:30 because he's coming he's going against
1:37:32 not just you know a vague intro when we
1:37:34 talk about intuition we're not talking
1:37:35 about some sort of vague intuition we're
1:37:37 saying something that appears absurd
1:37:40 yeah doesn't make sense to the mind yeah
1:37:44 now if for you to then
1:37:46 for a person to then say no no it can be
1:37:48 true
1:37:50 why can it be true because it's not a
1:37:51 logical contradiction like a squared
1:37:53 circle no that doesn't mean that it's
1:37:55 possible still you have to demonstrate
1:37:58 why i should reject the absurdity that
1:38:01 i'm concluding
1:38:02 of an actual infinite formed by
1:38:04 successive addition you have to
1:38:05 demonstrate that it is you know possible
1:38:08 yeah especially you know from my
1:38:10 understanding somebody who's uh has
1:38:12 aristotelian uh principles yeah follows
1:38:15 that sort of neurostatic philosophy he
1:38:18 has to demonstrate some sort of reality
1:38:20 for it uh in order to to uh justify its
1:38:23 possibility as opposed to just simply
1:38:25 saying well it's vaguely possible so
1:38:28 so i think that that issue is important
1:38:30 for me the second thing that i think is
1:38:31 important to me is and this is the issue
1:38:34 which is that
1:38:35 when people opposite the idea of an
1:38:37 actual infinite they always talk about
1:38:39 cantor set theorem they talk about trans
1:38:41 fine art mathematics they talk about how
1:38:43 transforming like mathematics operates
1:38:45 at a different level so if you had uh
1:38:48 you know infinite
1:38:50 1 plus infinite 2 yeah or alif 1 plus
1:38:54 alif 2
1:38:56 you know you'd assume it'd be alifri
1:38:58 yeah ali queen the
1:39:00 you know the the the set of infinite
1:39:03 things yeah and you can have higher and
1:39:04 lower infinities so you'd assume it'd be
1:39:06 infinite three but alif one plus alif
1:39:08 two would be infinite aleph two
1:39:10 yeah it's subsumed the alif the first
1:39:14 infinite set is subsumed into the larger
1:39:16 infinite set you can't do normal
1:39:19 addition and subtraction like you would
1:39:22 do with finite numbers yeah so
1:39:25 what then
1:39:27 people will say is saying well hilbert's
1:39:29 hotel works because you're dealing with
1:39:32 trans-finite mathematics but the problem
1:39:36 i have is that when you take transfinite
1:39:38 or actual infinite into the real world
1:39:40 you can
1:39:42 yeah
1:39:43 do things which are you know finer
1:39:46 mathematical operations if i had an
1:39:48 infinite number of marbles
1:39:50 yeah the idea of saying three minus
1:39:53 infinity
1:39:54 is absurd using trans-finite
1:39:58 mathematics yeah mathematical operations
1:40:00 but in the real world you can literally
1:40:02 take three marbles away from the
1:40:04 infinite pile yeah
1:40:06 whereas obviously you know through the
1:40:08 axioms of mathematics you can't do that
1:40:09 through transfinite mathematics so for
1:40:12 me again it demonstrates a absurdity in
1:40:16 regards to talking about actual
1:40:17 infinites formed by successive edition
1:40:19 sorry for going on for a bit
1:40:25 yourself you muted so there was one yeah
1:40:28 i've only did not have them here so
1:40:29 there was someone who asked uh i'm
1:40:31 trying to find the comment again
1:40:33 uh
1:40:35 heaven and hell
1:40:37 are infinite and they
1:40:39 exist so wouldn't that mean that an
1:40:41 actual infinite exists and the answer to
1:40:43 that is no because they're not actual
1:40:45 infinites they're potential infinites
1:40:47 which is the distinction
1:40:49 an actual infinite is one that exists
1:40:51 necessarily now
1:40:53 um or as a potential infinite is that it
1:40:55 can you can consistently
1:40:58 add plus one plus one plus one plus one
1:41:00 but it's never actually an infinite
1:41:02 because it has a beginning they were
1:41:04 created and so at any point in that
1:41:06 timeline they're always finite
1:41:09 so if you're looking at you know for
1:41:11 example if heaven was created however
1:41:13 long ago
1:41:14 and you're thinking about how old is it
1:41:15 now that's not an infinite number of
1:41:18 days if you you know even and if you go
1:41:20 any if you pick any point in the
1:41:22 timeline into the future
1:41:24 it's always existed for a finite amount
1:41:26 of time it's not actually infinite it's
1:41:29 potentially which is the distinction and
1:41:31 so no
1:41:32 an actual infinite there doesn't exist
1:41:34 if you posit
1:41:36 heaven or hell as a counter or a
1:41:37 defeater to that um so the next thing we
1:41:39 could ask now
1:41:41 is uh we might have already sort of
1:41:43 addressed this
1:41:45 is there a difference between an endless
1:41:46 series ending and a beginning
1:41:49 uh beginning list
1:41:54 is it so is an actual infinite illogical
1:41:58 i think we've expressed that
1:42:04 so can we say an actual infinite is a
1:42:06 metaphysical impossibility what does
1:42:08 this mean
1:42:09 sorry can i just say something about
1:42:11 this
1:42:12 user what
1:42:18 i'm not sure you understand what
1:42:20 an argument from incredulity is i mean
1:42:23 it's
1:42:24 only an argument from incredulity if i
1:42:26 say
1:42:27 okay so this is counterintuitive you
1:42:29 know i have that
1:42:31 as like a basis for my assessment of
1:42:32 things
1:42:34 and and
1:42:35 and i'm rejecting that right now so on
1:42:37 that basis i'm saying like oh
1:42:39 well this cannot be true
1:42:41 now now it's it's only an argument from
1:42:43 incredulity if i say that my
1:42:45 conclusion is necessarily true then if i
1:42:48 put it in a logical form
1:42:50 that's not something i'm doing because
1:42:52 clearly the first thing i said was that
1:42:55 the most reasonable objection to this is
1:42:57 that it's just counter-intuitive doesn't
1:42:58 mean it's necessarily false
1:43:01 now if i say that because
1:43:03 it's counter-intuitive then it is
1:43:05 necessarily false as in it logically
1:43:07 follows that's where been doing an
1:43:09 argument for incredulity it's not just
1:43:11 that i have an intuition about something
1:43:12 you have intuitions about stuff too
1:43:14 matthew doesn't mean that you're
1:43:15 consistently everyday you know
1:43:17 fallaciously
1:43:19 uh uh you know uh throwing arguments
1:43:21 from incredulity around okay so that's
1:43:24 how it works
1:43:25 yeah there's there's arguments against a
1:43:28 position
1:43:30 yeah that's the point there's an
1:43:31 argument against a position
1:43:34 the argument so there's an argument
1:43:35 against an actual infinite by a
1:43:37 successive edition
1:43:38 there is a claim that it's a logical
1:43:41 possibility
1:43:42 yeah that's all
1:43:44 yeah so there's an evidentialist or a
1:43:47 metaphysical argument to demonstrate
1:43:50 impossibility to now oppose that
1:43:52 argument
1:43:53 you can't just simply say well it's not
1:43:55 a logical impossibility yeah that's not
1:43:58 how you can impose the
1:43:59 oppose the argument here
1:44:01 okay so imagine last thing sorry i'm not
1:44:03 going to keep going but matthew's just
1:44:04 matthew's a nice guy so look uh matthew
1:44:07 the the the kalam says everything yes
1:44:09 it's this is generalized principle this
1:44:11 is this is
1:44:14 used as a support of one of the premises
1:44:17 as in
1:44:18 you can you can
1:44:21 your support of the premise doesn't have
1:44:23 to be like a logical necessity i mean
1:44:24 nobody would ever make an argument right
1:44:27 right so so
1:44:28 so
1:44:29 when i'm presenting a premise my defense
1:44:31 of it doesn't like if i think of like um
1:44:34 all all men are immortal socrates of man
1:44:36 therefore you know software season
1:44:38 mortal
1:44:39 i mean now
1:44:40 my defense of these premises right i
1:44:43 mean this is a this is a
1:44:45 very simplistic example because uh
1:44:47 obviously this is analytic just
1:44:48 analytically true but the point is that
1:44:50 if you're ever going to like
1:44:53 um
1:44:54 if it's if it's a synthetic proposition
1:44:56 you're ever going to defend it
1:44:58 and you're and if if we're able to put
1:45:00 such synthetic propositions in
1:45:03 a logical form
1:45:05 uh and you're expecting that the defense
1:45:07 of every single premise
1:45:09 is for a tibiological necessity i don't
1:45:10 think anyone would ever be able to get
1:45:13 off the ground with any argument so
1:45:14 that's not even that's right mention the
1:45:16 point all men immortal socrates is a man
1:45:18 he says that's like considered the
1:45:20 strongest form
1:45:21 of a deductive logical argument but he
1:45:23 said that all the premise all men
1:45:25 immortal is that inductively established
1:45:28 or arrived at or you know
1:45:30 do you have you experienced all men you
1:45:32 haven't experienced all men so how do
1:45:34 you make the claim that all men are
1:45:36 mortal unless like you said you define
1:45:39 that to be a man means to be mortal then
1:45:41 you're just using a particular
1:45:43 analytical exactly premise yeah yeah
1:45:45 yeah perfect example yeah so you know so
1:45:48 this is so so i can say it's true by
1:45:50 definition for example right that
1:45:53 you know i i mean obviously that would
1:45:55 be trivial right but then the point is
1:45:58 yes matthew it says everything
1:46:00 you're not listening the point is that
1:46:02 the defense of that premise that says
1:46:04 everything right in order to defend that
1:46:07 you're defending it using like you know
1:46:09 the evidences and lines of reasoning
1:46:11 that are not necessarily all logical
1:46:13 necessities so they don't have to be
1:46:15 multiple necessities for you to
1:46:16 generalize it
1:46:18 we can even argue that from the notion
1:46:20 of beginning that it is entailed that
1:46:22 everything that begins to exist so like
1:46:25 if you're saying something begins that
1:46:27 is like you mentioned earlier that at t
1:46:30 zero it began to exist
1:46:33 at t minus one that like you have to ask
1:46:36 well what gave rise to it and so you're
1:46:39 sort of yeah yeah
1:46:40 imagine you do that and you and you make
1:46:42 it just by definition right so what yeah
1:46:45 yeah
1:46:46 right so if you say that by definition
1:46:47 everything that begins to exist has a
1:46:49 cause so it's just analytically true but
1:46:51 again that's just trivial because nobody
1:46:54 people are just going to disagree with
1:46:54 the definition based on so um the point
1:46:57 is that uh matthew if if your approach
1:47:00 is taken i don't think anybody would
1:47:01 ever like make an argument
1:47:04 but anyway let's uh let's continue so
1:47:06 did we address that uh last question i
1:47:08 said is an actual infinite import
1:47:10 illogical
1:47:12 is it yeah i think we answered that one
1:47:14 okay so can we say an actual infinite is
1:47:17 a metaphysical impossibility what does
1:47:18 this mean in comparison to a logical
1:47:20 impossibility if we address that
1:47:23 uh i think i'd remind you of addressing
1:47:25 yeah sort of
1:47:27 sorry sorry what was that again
1:47:30 so
1:47:31 uh can we say an actual infinite is a
1:47:34 metaphysical impossibility and what does
1:47:36 this mean in comparison to
1:47:38 a logical impossibility
1:47:40 so what does it mean logical
1:47:42 impossibility is basically like um
1:47:44 it is or it entails a contradiction
1:47:47 a and not a
1:47:49 right uh
1:47:50 and and uh metaphysical impossibility
1:47:52 some people like for example richard
1:47:54 swimberg
1:47:56 for him metaphysical impossibilities
1:47:58 just collapse to logical possibilities
1:48:00 so part of this is going to be semantic
1:48:03 but then there is there are metaphysical
1:48:04 considerations
1:48:06 either way guys it's an impossibility i
1:48:08 mean just
1:48:09 the the i think this is this is just a
1:48:11 technical part but which which category
1:48:13 you're going to put it in but i mean
1:48:15 the way my this might have significant
1:48:17 influence is that well logical
1:48:18 impossibility i mean people are
1:48:20 definitely just going to reject that
1:48:22 uh and and uh
1:48:24 of course not taking like like other
1:48:26 fair consistent logical systems of
1:48:28 consideration but then uh metaphysical
1:48:30 impossibility is a bit more nuanced but
1:48:31 then what we're saying is that generally
1:48:33 people accept like the whole thing about
1:48:34 starting to count and traversing an
1:48:36 infinite
1:48:37 i mean
1:48:38 regardless of what you're going to call
1:48:39 it there's just very broad agreement
1:48:42 that that itself is impossible
1:48:45 yes so maybe um
1:48:48 because you know maybe for me to try to
1:48:49 understand this when we talk about
1:48:51 something which is a logical
1:48:52 impossibility we're saying the
1:48:53 proposition
1:48:55 is meaningless
1:48:56 yeah is that right
1:48:58 abdulrahman yeah so then when we say
1:49:01 yeah yeah you could say it's meaningless
1:49:03 like it's a proposition and it's
1:49:04 negation basically yeah yeah it's just a
1:49:07 meaningless proposition that's
1:49:10 that's what you're reducing it to so
1:49:12 saying an actual infinite by successive
1:49:14 edition
1:49:15 some people may argue may argue that it
1:49:17 doesn't necessitate a meaningless
1:49:19 proposition proposition can potentially
1:49:22 hold true yeah or you put it in a very
1:49:25 good way when you said the endless
1:49:26 ending i mean that's just basically it
1:49:28 yeah that's that's that's
1:49:30 a that's a logical problem yeah
1:49:33 uh contradiction because that is and i
1:49:35 said malpass agrees as well upon this
1:49:37 issue
1:49:38 um yeah exactly but just so maybe for
1:49:41 the audience as well just to reiterate
1:49:43 the points endlessly ending series is
1:49:46 impossible yeah
1:49:48 beginningless series that ends
1:49:51 is a
1:49:53 uh impossible because you have to ask
1:49:55 the question why did it end at this
1:49:57 moment as opposed to any other moment
1:49:59 and there's an infinite number of
1:50:01 moments it could have ended that yeah so
1:50:02 then it becomes
1:50:04 it just violates
1:50:07 amongst other things but it would
1:50:08 violate the psl the principle of
1:50:10 sufficient reason um as well as the fact
1:50:13 yeah i mean there's there's a strong
1:50:14 case to make and and and uh offi and and
1:50:17 uh
1:50:18 and craig had a back and forth on this
1:50:20 like in in in writing like in print
1:50:23 about that that it even violates like a
1:50:25 partial explanation like a weak
1:50:27 principle sufficient reason craig argued
1:50:29 about that
1:50:30 um but yeah i mean the whole like yeah
1:50:34 no i was going to say the third thing is
1:50:36 causal finitism which is less
1:50:38 controversial than talking about an
1:50:40 actual infinite causal finitism is a
1:50:43 series of causes
1:50:45 ultimately has to have a beginning
1:50:47 within that chain and ultimately what
1:50:49 the cosmological argument is simply
1:50:51 talking about is a series of causal
1:50:54 effects that the past is so that the
1:50:57 future is related to the present and the
1:50:59 present is related to the past yeah so
1:51:02 it does assume maybe an a theory
1:51:05 of time
1:51:07 yeah so that's maybe just concluding
1:51:08 that point
1:51:10 all right should we move on to try and
1:51:12 power through these so we can start
1:51:13 bringing people on because we're never
1:51:14 two hours now um so the next one if the
1:51:19 uh so i think we just started we always
1:51:21 seem to touch on the questions coming
1:51:24 um but if the time uh began at the
1:51:26 beginning of the universe
1:51:28 uh then how can we ask what caused the
1:51:31 universe as the cause would imply a time
1:51:34 before the beginning
1:51:35 of space and time
1:51:37 you know for example the universe
1:51:41 i don't know what jake how would you
1:51:43 respond
1:51:44 this question and answer this question
1:51:46 jake
1:51:50 the game is still in my head so i i just
1:51:53 i i lost that again what's what what was
1:51:55 this right maybe you'd take an answer i
1:51:57 just wanted traumatized and heartbroken
1:52:00 so yeah if the if time began at the
1:52:03 beginning of the universe and how can we
1:52:04 ask what caused the universe
1:52:06 as the course would imply a time before
1:52:09 the beginning of spacing oh yeah i don't
1:52:12 like the suggestion yeah jake can take
1:52:14 it if he wants it
1:52:17 so
1:52:18 this is one of the silly ones to be
1:52:20 honest i mean yeah is it yeah so this is
1:52:22 actually uh stephen hawkins and roger
1:52:24 penrose well well well where have you
1:52:26 been and
1:52:28 uh what stephen hawking turned around
1:52:31 and said he said uh
1:52:33 he said
1:52:34 ask him what uh caused the universe
1:52:36 is like asking uh what is north of north
1:52:39 pole because he said space time began
1:52:42 at the moment the universe was created
1:52:44 so therefore there is no cause
1:52:47 uh before the universe because there was
1:52:50 no before
1:52:52 the idea of the concept of before
1:52:54 because there's no concept of time
1:52:55 there's a number of ways of answering
1:52:57 this question
1:52:58 one of the ways is talking about how the
1:53:00 fact that something can have
1:53:01 simultaneous causation when we talk
1:53:04 about
1:53:05 um
1:53:06 causality doesn't does not necessarily
1:53:09 necessitate the logic or it's not
1:53:11 logically necessary to talk about a
1:53:14 cause being prior in time to the effect
1:53:17 yeah that's just something that we
1:53:19 observe and experience but even then
1:53:21 there are observations certainly from
1:53:23 phenomenological observations where we
1:53:25 see cause and effect take place at the
1:53:27 same time but yet the two distinct
1:53:29 things and really all we're trying to do
1:53:31 is establish that there is a distinct
1:53:32 thing which is a cause which is timeless
1:53:35 or which is eternal is probably a better
1:53:37 word to say or independent uh and that's
1:53:40 it whether they could at the moment you
1:53:42 know um
1:53:44 you know whether their simultaneous
1:53:46 causations to the effect is irrelevant
1:53:48 in that particular
1:53:49 uh perspective but there's other ways of
1:53:51 answering this question jake probably
1:53:53 got his way from inshallah well isn't it
1:53:55 isn't the most
1:53:57 maybe you can answer this right isn't
1:53:58 the most obvious problem with his
1:54:00 objection is that like
1:54:02 it kind of assumes that there's nothing
1:54:05 except the universe
1:54:06 i mean who said there's no before i mean
1:54:09 why why would i grant that
1:54:11 i mean
1:54:12 that's really that's the main most
1:54:13 obvious
1:54:15 objection for me like like
1:54:17 the simultaneous causation side it's
1:54:20 like wait who said there is no before
1:54:22 the point is that
1:54:23 there must be a
1:54:25 a first event now if you want to say
1:54:27 that this that singularity or whatever
1:54:29 that initial state that first moment
1:54:32 that is the first event well i'm fine we
1:54:34 just want to arrive at a first cause i
1:54:36 mean because because there's there's a
1:54:37 lot to say about what it is but then
1:54:40 depends then we're gonna have to talk
1:54:42 about stage two
1:54:43 whether that first event is like eternal
1:54:46 it came into being if that makes any
1:54:48 sense at all it was just there then it
1:54:50 started expanding the point is that why
1:54:52 why why
1:54:53 assuming that it's just
1:54:56 there's no time beyond that point
1:54:59 simply assumes that there's no cause
1:55:01 right that's that's that's that's the
1:55:03 issue
1:55:06 yeah i think that's right i think it
1:55:08 just um
1:55:10 i think the objection if we can even
1:55:12 call it that is just assuming that
1:55:14 there's
1:55:15 nothing before the universe and why
1:55:17 should we think 10 at all
1:55:19 i mean the argument is meant to try to
1:55:21 establish the fact that there is a cause
1:55:24 which is god himself
1:55:26 obviously we haven't gotten to that
1:55:27 point but that is
1:55:29 prior to the universe in some sense
1:55:32 whether you say temporarily
1:55:34 or
1:55:35 at the very least logically
1:55:37 um you know i know william lane craig
1:55:40 has his own semantics of how he talks
1:55:43 about it but
1:55:44 i mean
1:55:45 this is really nothing contradictory
1:55:47 nor inconceivable to say that there is a
1:55:50 cause
1:55:51 um
1:55:52 prior to the universe
1:55:53 uh unless you're already assuming that
1:55:56 there is nothing other than the universe
1:55:59 or maybe they're assuming well
1:56:02 if god exists in some sense prior to the
1:56:04 universe then we should be able to
1:56:06 measure that in some way
1:56:08 well why why should we think that we
1:56:10 should be able to measure that quote
1:56:12 unquote before or time before
1:56:15 the universe
1:56:17 why should we think that we should be
1:56:18 able to measure that and by the mere
1:56:20 fact that we can't it doesn't that
1:56:22 doesn't say anything about the fact that
1:56:24 god could be
1:56:26 exist as a cause
1:56:28 and create the universe so
1:56:30 yeah i think they're yeah and if you
1:56:32 think of it jake if you think of it that
1:56:34 what you just said right
1:56:36 assuming that we can measure it if you
1:56:38 really think of what that implies it
1:56:39 just implies that god is part of the
1:56:41 universe again so again it implies that
1:56:43 only the universe exists because what is
1:56:45 the universe it's really what we can
1:56:46 observe and measure so again again
1:56:49 that's that's
1:56:50 it
1:56:52 it goes down to also what is time
1:56:55 so horrible i mean that can of worms
1:56:57 yeah
1:56:58 basically the problem is is that it's
1:57:01 taking one view of time
1:57:03 and saying okay this is time
1:57:06 therefore you can't ask anything prior
1:57:08 to it just like it takes a particular
1:57:10 view of causality and so this is
1:57:12 causality and anything that occurs is a
1:57:16 cause has to occur prior in time
1:57:20 yeah and we could even say like if we
1:57:22 wanted to just throw them a bone we
1:57:24 could say okay well if you understand
1:57:26 time that way maybe there is no before
1:57:30 in in time and in that sense but we can
1:57:33 still understand time in a different
1:57:35 sense and which is sort of prior to the
1:57:38 universe and yeah again
1:57:40 to me
1:57:41 it just seems to be whether
1:57:44 intentional or not
1:57:45 an assumption of
1:57:47 well like what abdulrahman said if you
1:57:50 if you can't measure it then there is no
1:57:52 time prior to the universe and if
1:57:54 there's no time to measure there can't
1:57:56 be anything
1:57:57 quote unquote before the universe but
1:57:59 that's just smuggling your own
1:58:02 interpretation or understanding of
1:58:04 causation and time uh anyway
1:58:07 the argument or
1:58:09 our position is not obligated to
1:58:11 conform to those conceptions you have to
1:58:13 argue for that independently
1:58:16 so um yeah i don't think it really a
1:58:19 successful objection
1:58:22 here i'm not sure why i'm
1:58:24 i'm not i didn't say i want to remove
1:58:26 space
1:58:27 uh
1:58:28 i'm not sure what you mean but if you if
1:58:30 you're talking about the idea that what
1:58:32 all can
1:58:33 all that can exist must be spatial and
1:58:36 whatever it is you want to say i mean
1:58:38 really so there's there's a stanford
1:58:40 encyclopedia entry on
1:58:41 space and the metaphysics of space i
1:58:43 mean what space is is something that i'm
1:58:45 very skeptical of i'm just thinking of
1:58:47 the the logical implications of what
1:58:49 you're saying so i'm not talking i'm not
1:58:50 talking about space i'm talking about
1:58:52 this closed system that we call the
1:58:54 universe right
1:58:56 it has
1:58:57 let's say it has a first event
1:58:59 now why say there can't be anything
1:59:01 outside of that i'm not bringing space
1:59:03 into the picture here when i say that
1:59:05 but yeah that's all
1:59:06 just as a point abdullah i always find
1:59:08 this really interesting that people
1:59:10 always because people bring this up and
1:59:14 told me to keep referencing skype die
1:59:16 phil yeah but his video
1:59:18 has different physicists on there
1:59:21 saying some of them saying this is my
1:59:24 problem with these arguments you have
1:59:26 people turn around and say
1:59:29 um the universe began to exist because
1:59:31 there is no causality before the
1:59:33 universe therefore something could come
1:59:34 from nothing and that doesn't violate
1:59:37 any problem yeah or they'll say well you
1:59:40 could have a cyclical universe which
1:59:42 goes from big bang big crunch and
1:59:45 occurs ad infinitum or the cell quite uh
1:59:49 infinite inflationary models and
1:59:50 universe sporting out of it or they talk
1:59:52 about you know
1:59:54 membrane structures that colliding and
1:59:56 we're just part of a particular local
1:59:57 cosmos or cyclical conformal cosmology
2:00:01 by roger penrose all of these things
2:00:02 yeah
2:00:03 as soon as you start to critique it from
2:00:05 a philosophical point of view then they
2:00:07 turn around say yeah but you can't ask
2:00:08 what
2:00:09 what caused the universe it's like hold
2:00:11 on you've given me all of these
2:00:13 scientific models that's trying to
2:00:15 explain
2:00:16 what caused the universe that the
2:00:18 universe was in a state of non-being and
2:00:20 then became into a being whether it's
2:00:23 through some
2:00:24 quantum event or whatever quantum
2:00:26 tunneling event or whatever it is but as
2:00:28 soon as we demonstrate a philosophical
2:00:30 argument that says the universe began to
2:00:32 exist and even if you throw in as many
2:00:35 philosophers scientific models within it
2:00:37 it won't escape this philosophical
2:00:39 argument yeah then suddenly they say oh
2:00:42 you can't ask what occurred before the
2:00:43 universe but you've just been doing that
2:00:46 all your models are doing this
2:00:48 yeah roger penrose himself talks about
2:00:51 prior to this universe there was other
2:00:54 universes yeah
2:00:56 that caused the existence of this
2:00:58 universe yeah
2:01:00 so and in fact he actually says well i
2:01:02 used to think you know you couldn't ask
2:01:04 this question but now i think you can
2:01:05 yeah so it just demonstrates that there
2:01:07 is a
2:01:08 a uh inconsistency uh when people raise
2:01:11 this as a particular question
2:01:13 or particular answer
2:01:19 yeah i think you can last
2:01:22 last question from the audience again is
2:01:24 saying something about what do you mean
2:01:25 outside very quickly i'll say
2:01:27 uh so when we're talking about causation
2:01:29 or explanation we're talking about
2:01:31 something that explains the phenomenon
2:01:33 so it's other than the phenomenon there
2:01:35 are certain exceptions to that obviously
2:01:37 we talk about free will but that's what
2:01:39 i mean by outside you don't have to
2:01:42 you don't have to think of space right
2:01:43 so what caused the universe well i
2:01:46 unless you're going to appeal to self
2:01:47 causation as in the universe cause
2:01:49 itself it's something other than the
2:01:51 universe that's all
2:01:55 okay so the next uh let's try and run
2:01:58 through these really quickly because i i
2:01:59 can't hang about too much longer myself
2:02:02 um because i've got to be up really
2:02:03 early sir uh why assume the logic of the
2:02:06 argument holds true before the universe
2:02:08 did i just ask that one
2:02:11 is that the one which one did you ask
2:02:12 sorry which one no no no no so why
2:02:15 assume the logic oh you know it's
2:02:16 logical so i assume the logic of the
2:02:19 argument holds true before the universe
2:02:21 uh the laws of the universe could change
2:02:23 so why can't we have a situation where
2:02:25 the laws of logic are different
2:02:28 and what would be considered illogical
2:02:30 in this universe would be logical
2:02:32 outside of it so
2:02:34 i just want to comment on this
2:02:35 so
2:02:36 this is problematic
2:02:38 because then it sort of undermines your
2:02:40 ability to say anything is logical
2:02:42 because logical becomes something that
2:02:44 evolves and changes over time rather
2:02:46 than it being something that's supposed
2:02:48 to be universal
2:02:49 and
2:02:50 what that means is that well you know if
2:02:52 it if logic was different before the
2:02:54 universe and it is now
2:02:56 then that means it can also be different
2:02:58 in the future than it is now so
2:03:01 and this is hugely problematic and i
2:03:03 don't see why they wouldn't
2:03:05 see that straight away because it just
2:03:07 it undermines your ability to talk about
2:03:09 anything you can't have universals
2:03:11 you can't you know you can't talk
2:03:14 it would be so difficult to do science
2:03:17 with the understanding that
2:03:18 that you know the laws of logic are
2:03:20 something that evolve
2:03:22 like things
2:03:23 in the universe rather than being
2:03:26 something that is a priori
2:03:28 and universal like
2:03:31 regardless
2:03:32 of
2:03:33 what period of time you're in etc or
2:03:35 whatever
2:03:36 the universals hold because they are
2:03:39 um
2:03:40 they priority so i would say that's a
2:03:43 pretty easy way of just dealing with it
2:03:44 and if you want to say that it changes
2:03:46 then
2:03:47 don't even bother having logical
2:03:49 arguments like you you might as well be
2:03:51 a post-modernist
2:03:53 see this i'm not going to answer the
2:03:55 question i'll let the other brothers on
2:03:56 sequoia but this is like the last
2:03:59 the last straw yeah
2:04:01 the last recourse of the atheist says
2:04:03 yeah but why assume
2:04:06 logic
2:04:07 what's it called the dying
2:04:12 and i've heard this i've heard this many
2:04:13 times where people say
2:04:15 you know using a for i'd like so i don't
2:04:17 use the casey i maybe use a form of like
2:04:18 the contingency stroke kca yeah
2:04:21 hybridized model
2:04:23 and they will they will say your logic
2:04:25 and rationality is correct
2:04:28 they will admit to that
2:04:30 but then they'll say
2:04:31 but why why should i assume that this is
2:04:34 somebody is the same it's the same
2:04:36 probably with the christians
2:04:38 when like you go through the
2:04:39 conversation and eventually they're like
2:04:42 throw the logic out the window quickly
2:04:43 are you like you've seen them
2:04:46 those youtube videos
2:04:48 the mystery cat yeah have you seen the
2:04:49 youtube videos where there's a someone
2:04:51 who's got drugs in the car
2:04:53 and he's driving around and then like
2:04:54 the last moment he just has to do
2:04:56 something so he just throws them out of
2:04:57 the window
2:04:59 and it's it's it's like that but with
2:05:01 logic like that's that's the logic
2:05:03 but look i mean i guess i'd answer i'd
2:05:05 ask a counter like question right as in
2:05:08 so how do you know logic you know holds
2:05:11 outside of the universe how do you know
2:05:13 hold inside of your bedroom
2:05:14 um
2:05:16 how do you how do you know it holds
2:05:17 inside the galaxy well behind you how do
2:05:20 you know all that halfway through the
2:05:22 universe i mean why are you drawing this
2:05:23 arbitrary line i mean how do you know it
2:05:25 all so it's like what is it
2:05:27 why are we drawing a line around the
2:05:28 universe i mean what separates what is
2:05:31 other than the universe in terms of
2:05:32 these like you know universal laws of
2:05:34 logic that we so so you you want to
2:05:37 doubt that just you know draw the line
2:05:39 and you're just drawing an arbitrary
2:05:41 line basically
2:05:43 so now
2:05:44 matthew's saying so logic would still
2:05:45 hold but would physics but this is the
2:05:48 thing like the physics is underpinned by
2:05:51 logical axioms
2:05:52 it that's that's the whole point so just
2:05:55 appealing to physics
2:05:57 doesn't escape the problem that we've
2:05:59 been
2:06:00 talking you
2:06:03 the issue is this sorry really good the
2:06:04 issue is this is what
2:06:07 i find so funny
2:06:08 when atheists start to start denying
2:06:11 causality it's like bro man you're the
2:06:13 one that was telling me about not
2:06:15 believing in magic
2:06:17 yeah not believing in the supernatural
2:06:18 was the most supernatural thing you
2:06:20 could ever think of is something coming
2:06:22 from nothing with no explanation no
2:06:23 reason no cause nothing
2:06:25 yeah that's the most magical thing i
2:06:28 could ever think about yeah
2:06:30 so
2:06:32 this whole idea you know of atheists
2:06:35 turning around and saying oh you
2:06:38 theists and muslims you
2:06:40 believe in this supernatural thing that
2:06:43 causes you
2:06:46 yeah you believe in something even more
2:06:48 crazy i'm sorry and you're getting into
2:06:50 the the state of
2:06:52 literal supernatural
2:06:54 magical thinking which is fine if that's
2:06:56 what you want to do yeah if you want to
2:06:58 go down that route but you've not you've
2:07:00 now abandoned reason you abandoned logic
2:07:04 you have no
2:07:05 anchoring for any of your positions now
2:07:07 even your observations
2:07:09 because like abdul rahman said you know
2:07:12 he said well how can you assume the
2:07:14 logic exists outside of your bedroom or
2:07:16 behind your back but even then you can
2:07:18 say how how can you assume logic will
2:07:20 exist one second in the future
2:07:22 yeah why do you assume that the logic
2:07:24 will hold then yeah there are more
2:07:26 they're going to be more and more pro
2:07:28 why is it that the uni this universe
2:07:31 even now even now because now is
2:07:33 constantly changing so like if it's
2:07:36 something that can
2:07:38 change and if it's something that could
2:07:39 have been it's similar to the the bloody
2:07:41 thing that i mentioned about um
2:07:43Music 2:07:45 edmond hustle
2:07:47 like
2:07:48 how it just ultimately becomes where
2:07:50 does everyone go um
2:07:52 it just it just seems silly to go down
2:07:54 that route because it to me i just i
2:07:56 really do think it just leads you to
2:07:57 postmodernism
2:07:59 like
2:08:00 well i mean you just don't have
2:08:04 it's purely but yeah so let's move on to
2:08:05 the
2:08:06 yeah exactly exactly so uh so the next
2:08:08 thing is uh all the ksa uh kca shows
2:08:13 is that we have a cause it doesn't prove
2:08:14 god uh so now how do you move on
2:08:17 from a cause to a god
2:08:22 bro these last two questions are like
2:08:24 the whole podcast on their own man and
2:08:25 you just throw them in there at the end
2:08:28 so there's a jig will answer it he'll do
2:08:30 it quickly come on jake go on __  2:08:33 i mean we've had entire extremes pretty
2:08:36 much on this question haven't we
2:08:38 um
2:08:39 and and our discussion with uh
2:08:42 as well
2:08:43 about uh the will so you have different
2:08:46 arguments for example for the necessity
2:08:49 of the the first cause having a will the
2:08:52 fact of getting a temporal effect from
2:08:55 an eternal cause
2:08:57 the fact that
2:09:00 each each one of these things that
2:09:02 exists for example even if you consider
2:09:04 the the so-called laws of nature
2:09:07 or
2:09:08 pretty much anything you can imagine is
2:09:10 is a possible existent thing and so the
2:09:13 question is why is there this
2:09:15 specification and
2:09:17 you know there's an argument in the
2:09:19 islamic tradition that deals with this
2:09:20 why is there this specification over a
2:09:23 certain set of possible things over
2:09:25 another well that's best explained by a
2:09:28 will
2:09:29 specifying one set of possibilities over
2:09:32 another set of possibilities
2:09:35 also the fact
2:09:36 that it seems like this being would have
2:09:39 uh
2:09:40 immense power and knowledge by the fact
2:09:43 that it created everything that exists
2:09:45 that everything that exists is causally
2:09:48 dependent upon uh that being
2:09:51 and i mean we can give
2:09:54 we can give other
2:09:55 arguments
2:09:57 to try to demonstrate that further but i
2:10:00 think that that's really sufficient
2:10:01 because all we're trying to do is show
2:10:04 that there's a there's a cause of the
2:10:06 universe and everything that exists and
2:10:08 it has certain specific attributes like
2:10:11 knowledge power
2:10:13 will etc and that seems to point towards
2:10:17 an intelligent necessary being rather
2:10:20 than some quantum fluctuation or some uh
2:10:23 mindless uh naturalistic cause
2:10:26 so that's the basic gist of it without
2:10:28 going into too much detail just to try
2:10:30 to save some time
2:10:34 anyone want to add to that or should we
2:10:36 move to the next one
2:10:39 no
2:10:40 i think we have an entire stream on that
2:10:41 and i i think this maybe this is a bit
2:10:44 more focused on stage one right the
2:10:46 clown cosmological argument like
2:10:47 basically premise one and two right
2:10:50 yeah so yeah i think it's a field six
2:10:53 i think what imam because the point
2:10:55 means that imam goes out when he
2:10:57 presents the
2:10:58 cosmological argument and the discussion
2:11:00 that he has upon this in the end he he
2:11:02 makes that point which jake mentioned
2:11:04 which is that you have an eternal cause
2:11:06 and you have temporal effects and he
2:11:08 goes that's how you identify will that's
2:11:10 how you identify you have a willing
2:11:12 agent and not just some sort of
2:11:15 physical
2:11:17 mechanistic force
2:11:18 uh that's causing because if that's the
2:11:20 case then you don't have temporal effect
2:11:22 you have an internal effect if the cause
2:11:24 is eternal yeah so uh there's more that
2:11:27 can be said about that but i think uh
2:11:29 you know martial jake softs
2:11:31 uh tackled all the points you know i
2:11:33 mean consciousness is a big thing as
2:11:35 well but that's going outside of the
2:11:37 cosmological argument
2:11:41 okay and so the last one is
2:11:43 how does this prove
2:11:45 islam is true
2:11:49 oh i mean we kind of talked about that
2:11:51 earlier um i don't think
2:11:53 we claim that it does and
2:11:55 anyone who is actually
2:11:57 providing the argument doesn't really
2:11:59 think that it does
2:12:00 but it's a a step in the right direction
2:12:03 in the sense if you have a staunch
2:12:04 atheist you've shown him that his
2:12:07 position is is flawed and it's false i
2:12:10 mean you're rattling his entire
2:12:12 foundation and when you show to him that
2:12:15 god exists or that there's a
2:12:17 intelligent powerful knowledgeable um
2:12:20 being that is necessary that has a will
2:12:23 that cause everything that exists well
2:12:25 then you're you're getting um
2:12:28 not only much closer to islam but you're
2:12:30 showing him that his position is false
2:12:32 and then
2:12:33 as we said earlier it's a step-by-step
2:12:35 process you can move that from that
2:12:38 point uh to showing the specific uh
2:12:41 religion is true and in our case that
2:12:44 islam is true and we would do that
2:12:46 through other arguments whether it be
2:12:48 through showing the miraculous nature of
2:12:50 the quran or showing the
2:12:53 um the prophethood of the prophet
2:12:54 muhammad uh peace be upon him and are
2:12:57 there various arguments to try to
2:12:59 bridge that gap between showing that god
2:13:02 exists and that islam is true so just to
2:13:04 be clear we're not arguing that it does
2:13:06 that we're showing that it's successful
2:13:08 in a particular arena and then we're
2:13:11 saying that further argumentation needs
2:13:13 to be given in order to lead to the fact
2:13:16 that islam is true
2:13:18 and
2:13:19 we we think that we can do that although
2:13:21 we haven't to be honest we haven't
2:13:22 focused much on that on our stream so
2:13:25 that's this may be something we should
2:13:27 we should take a look at in the future
2:13:29 insha allah yeah definitely stage three
2:13:31 so yeah
2:13:33 just
2:13:34 just real quick so when you say how does
2:13:36 it prove islam if you mean as in a proof
2:13:38 as in entails islam of course it doesn't
2:13:40 but it it can be used as evidence for
2:13:43 islam so the depending on the conclusion
2:13:46 obviously we arrive at after a two-stage
2:13:48 cosmological argument then the if if we
2:13:51 if that's been established you know
2:13:53 whether it's for the person or whether
2:13:55 in you know whether it's been
2:13:56 established like objectively
2:13:58 that
2:14:00 conclusion can be used as evidence for
2:14:02 islam in the sense that arriving at that
2:14:05 makes
2:14:06 islam more likely true than not again
2:14:08 just same thing we said about how we use
2:14:10 that scientific evidence that you know
2:14:12 it basically implies that
2:14:14 finitism or
2:14:16 is is a definition of the past is more
2:14:18 likely than not in the same way this can
2:14:20 be used as evidence for islam in a more
2:14:22 broad cumulative case
2:14:25 yeah that's a that's a a
2:14:28 weight to the scale of the truthfulness
2:14:30 of it and it's the case with anything
2:14:32 like so for example if you're if you go
2:14:34 to a court and you're trying to prove
2:14:36 something
2:14:37 it's not like you're just gonna have a
2:14:39 three
2:14:40 propositioned argument to prove or you
2:14:43 know conclusively that a particular
2:14:46 conclusion is true no like when when if
2:14:49 you go to a court
2:14:50 and this by is no means nearly is
2:14:53 anywhere near as complex as trying to
2:14:55 try to prove
2:14:56 like um you know a god exists for
2:14:58 example using
2:15:00 rational evidences etcetera it's a hyper
2:15:03 simplistic version of as an example and
2:15:06 even with this you still need to go
2:15:09 through a lot of um
2:15:12 you know different adding of
2:15:13 propositions so you might have an
2:15:15 argument to prove that this was the
2:15:17 murder weapon might have an argument to
2:15:18 prove that this was uh this person was
2:15:21 here at this time and that they had a
2:15:22 motive and then you add this argument
2:15:24 and that argument et cetera et cetera
2:15:26 and you build an accumulative case
2:15:28 which leads the people that are
2:15:30 listening and that
2:15:31 are judging
2:15:33 um to a conclusion that they could
2:15:35 accept and so it's
2:15:37 i i think people generally when they
2:15:39 sort of ex they expect too much or
2:15:41 they're naive about what certain
2:15:43 arguments are supposed to do and they're
2:15:45 saying that if you need if you're going
2:15:47 to have an argument you need to get to
2:15:48 the conclusion straight away basically
2:15:50 but if you want that you're going to
2:15:51 have a very big argument there's going
2:15:52 to be a conjunction of many arguments
2:15:54 and so you're going to have the collapse
2:15:56 you're going to have a stage one
2:15:58 um which will lead to a conclusion and
2:16:00 then that conclusion will be added with
2:16:01 another premise which leads to more
2:16:03 conclusions which and then you'd add
2:16:05 more and it'd just be huge you'd end up
2:16:06 writing a book on it
2:16:08 and that's not going to be something
2:16:09 you're going to do one live stream on
2:16:12 at all and um
2:16:13 you know you can't expect to just
2:16:17 produce something like that in
2:16:19 what two premises and a conclusion
2:16:21 um i think it's incredibly naive and
2:16:24 silly
2:16:24 um to to be expecting something like
2:16:27 that um but yeah so in terms of
2:16:30 how uh to prove islam is true
2:16:33 in short this is just referred to as
2:16:34 goal rap and what we've been discussing
2:16:36 today is one part of proving the g
2:16:39 in goal rap and goal wrap stands for
2:16:41 basically the fundamental things you
2:16:43 need to prove in order to be able to
2:16:44 take a shahada you need to first of all
2:16:46 be convinced that god exists how do you
2:16:48 convince someone that god exists you
2:16:50 appeal to certain things you can appeal
2:16:51 to
2:16:52 things in the universe you can appeal to
2:16:53 rational arguments you can appeal to
2:16:55 something to prove to them that god
2:16:57 exists and then you have discussions
2:16:58 about the nature of god so he's got one
2:17:00 a multiplicity a trinity you know which
2:17:03 one of these makes the most sense
2:17:05 and then uh you get to the last two
2:17:07 stages which is
2:17:09 the revelation
2:17:10 and the prophethood and obviously
2:17:13 revelation you talk about what would be
2:17:15 likely candidates for revelation and
2:17:17 with regards to p or prophet hood you
2:17:19 would talk about who would be likely
2:17:20 candidates for prophethood and then you
2:17:23 would make separate arguments in favor
2:17:24 of them and if you can convince them of
2:17:25 each of these stages
2:17:27 at the end of that if they agree to all
2:17:29 of them they're going to be a muslim so
2:17:31 you need to keep that in mind and if you
2:17:32 want more details on this uh there's a
2:17:35 new learning platform that's just been
2:17:36 released on sapiens institute and
2:17:38 there's an advanced dowa training course
2:17:40 on there um so if you go to
2:17:41 learn.sapiensinstitute.org
2:17:44 if one of the mods can put that on uh
2:17:46 because i don't have modding
2:17:48 privileges on streaming at the moment uh
2:17:50 so yeah if you go to
2:17:51 learn.sapiensinstitute.org
2:17:56 on there there is an advanced tower
2:17:57 training course and there's also a
2:17:59 course on disputation and argumentation
2:18:02 um done by
2:18:04 brother uh suffolk chowdhury who's been
2:18:06 on this show uh he i think it was the
2:18:08 last one he did was the problem of evil
2:18:10 i think
2:18:11 yeah he's been on a couple times yeah
2:18:12 yeah but he wrote a book on
2:18:14 argumentation which i have
2:18:21 here by the way somebody sent a super
2:18:24 chat uh saying
2:18:25 so
2:18:26 uh
2:18:30 for the super chat i appreciate that
2:18:32 bless you
2:18:34 um
2:18:35 but yeah so this is the
2:18:37 uh the book
2:18:38 that he's he's done and it's what the
2:18:39 course is uh based on as well and so
2:18:42 there's there's all of that and then
2:18:44 there's a no doubts course and soon um
2:18:46 insha'allah before ramadan jake's course
2:18:49 there with regards to um chris
2:18:52 theological issues is going to be he's
2:18:54 got two courses coming out there's going
2:18:55 to be another one of mine which is
2:18:57 basically the one that i did but just in
2:18:59 a more neater format
2:19:01 and professionally filmed on nihilism
2:19:03 and there's loads of plans to just keep
2:19:05 adding more content on there so just
2:19:07 keep an eye on it
2:19:08 and uh
2:19:10 the advanced hour course goes through
2:19:12 all of this and taking you through steps
2:19:13 and basically stage three is contained
2:19:16 within that an intro level try and do
2:19:18 an episode on stage three
2:19:21 in the future in china but uh
2:19:24 i hope that that's what's got through
2:19:25 all of that uh so at this point we can
2:19:27 start inviting people on but i mean i do
2:19:29 need to
2:19:30 i put the link in the chat and i uh
2:19:32 pinned it already
2:19:34 okay
2:19:35 um but i'm gonna have to leave now um so
2:19:38 apologies to leave you on your own
2:19:40 uh but i need to get home and get ready
2:19:42 for bed and be up early otherwise i'll
2:19:45 be pooped
2:19:46 okay
2:19:48 all right it's been a pleasure guys and
2:19:50 uh we'll speak again soon inshaallah but
2:19:52 i'll leave you uh
2:19:54 everything in your capable hands
2:20:00 so we're to bring matt on
2:20:03 yeah just just one uh okay matt's here
2:20:05 never mind go ahead
2:20:07 yeah yeah i mean you could say something
2:20:11 how are you guys it has been a while i
2:20:13 hope you're all doing good yeah we're
2:20:14 good we're good thank you
2:20:17 so you guys hit a lot of the uh
2:20:20 objections but i was one but there's one
2:20:22 that you didn't hit which is i think we
2:20:24 derive our sense of beginning and
2:20:26 causation in general from observation i
2:20:29 think we know that the chicken comes
2:20:31 from the egg by watching it hatch
2:20:33 we don't have that with the universe and
2:20:35 the universe is a one-off right so we
2:20:37 don't have other examples to compare it
2:20:39 to so how can we really say that it
2:20:41 began to exist if we didn't observe it
2:20:46 um
2:20:48 so
2:20:51 so so okay so so in order to say that
2:20:54 something began we must observe it is
2:20:56 basically what you're saying well can
2:20:58 you give me a
2:21:00 cause something that began to exist at a
2:21:02 cause we have to observe it
2:21:05 yeah because
2:21:06 of causation of cause
2:21:08 the only one know that a person knows
2:21:09 that a chicken had a cause was that
2:21:11 there was a person actually saw a
2:21:12 chicken being born and then that's he
2:21:14 suddenly thought oh
2:21:16 chickens have not always been eternal is
2:21:18 that right matt
2:21:20 how if you never if you didn't know what
2:21:22 a chicken was how would you know that it
2:21:23 came from an egg
2:21:24 so you would think you would literally
2:21:26 think this is this is an eternal chicken
2:21:28 in front of me
2:21:30 no i didn't say that but we have to we
2:21:33 you you get you there's something called
2:21:35 agnosticism which is unknowing what
2:21:38 occurred so if i just you know you
2:21:39 you're lucky
2:21:41 you don't know i wouldn't
2:21:43 i didn't say if it was eternal or not i
2:21:45 wouldn't know for example if it came
2:21:46 from an egg if it came from live birth
2:21:48 if i didn't know what an animal was i
2:21:50 wouldn't know that where it came from
2:21:52 how far would you take this empiricism
2:21:56 well until
2:21:58 and we we can't we didn't observe what
2:22:00 happened before the universe right well
2:22:02 you're answering my question
2:22:06 what
2:22:07 has anybody observed the beginning of
2:22:10 our sun
2:22:11 the sun is a poor example because there
2:22:13 are many other stars that we obviously
2:22:15 so the question is this is why i asked
2:22:17 the question how far are you willing to
2:22:19 take this empirical approach
2:22:22 two examples
2:22:24 every event
2:22:25 has to be observed
2:22:27 before we can say anything about the
2:22:29 events temporarily or eternality
2:22:32 or are you saying that we can
2:22:34 from your perspective as an empiricist
2:22:37 say that we can induce based upon a set
2:22:40 of data so in the case of our surn we
2:22:43 say yeah it began to exist why not
2:22:45 because we see it i don't have to see
2:22:48 the sun to begin to exist i can infer it
2:22:51 for an inductive process that other
2:22:53 stars began to exist yeah
2:22:55 so therefore i can talk about my sun
2:22:58 beginning to exist so my star in this
2:23:00 solar system but to work with the
2:23:01 universe because we only have one as i
2:23:03 said at the beginning
2:23:04 right but the point being is that this
2:23:06 premise whatever begins to exist has a
2:23:08 cause
2:23:09 yeah is not talking about specifically
2:23:12 the universe is talking about a
2:23:15 particular premise that whatever begins
2:23:18 has a cause now there's a number of
2:23:20 arguments for it first argument is it's
2:23:22 intuitive yeah it's something that we
2:23:25 readily
2:23:26 accept that something begins with to
2:23:28 accept it second argument we say
2:23:30 axiomatic for the rational and
2:23:32 scientific process so to deny this would
2:23:35 be a problem when it comes to the
2:23:37 scientific uh methodology and thirdly
2:23:40 it's inductively induced whatever begins
2:23:43 to exist which would also include the
2:23:45 universe if it began to exist would also
2:23:48 be accepted within that yeah
2:23:50 so we'd assume there was a cause now
2:23:53 you're saying no no no because we've
2:23:55 only had one universe and i've never
2:23:56 seen any other universe have a cause but
2:23:58 you can extend that and say that about
2:24:01 this universe like you could say well
2:24:03 because i've not seen this sun this
2:24:05 particular star in our solar system
2:24:07 beginning to exist how can i infer it i
2:24:09 don't think you can extend it like that
2:24:11 we only have one example
2:24:14 yeah we only have one exam how many suns
2:24:15 a week how many stars are there in this
2:24:17 in the solar system
2:24:19 yeah there's four hundred billion stars
2:24:20 so it's that analysis
2:24:22 there's not four hundred billion stars
2:24:23 oh it's mostly so you said this galaxy
2:24:25 just the one right okay so how can you
2:24:27 infer
2:24:29 what
2:24:30 how can you because not other stars
2:24:32 there are 400 billion stars in the milky
2:24:34 way and there are billions of galaxies
2:24:36 full of billions of stars
2:24:38 what
2:24:39 how can you how can you infer that
2:24:41 whatever happens outside of this solar
2:24:44 system
2:24:45 yeah can be transferred to what occurs
2:24:47 within this solar system
2:24:51 because we we actually have
2:24:53 observational evidence of how our solar
2:24:55 system began
2:24:56 right because we know about nebula in
2:24:58 efficient disks and gravity
2:25:01 yeah we don't have observation of how
2:25:03 this solar system began so how is that
2:25:05 transferring data that you observe of
2:25:08 your other solar systems
2:25:10 outside of this solar system and
2:25:12 applying it to this solar system
2:25:14 to reject the permit we have
2:25:16 observational evidence of how our solar
2:25:18 system began we have an asteroid belt
2:25:19 which is part of the debris from the
2:25:21 creation how do you know how do you know
2:25:23 that this star this sun yeah
2:25:27 this solar system
2:25:28 the the asteroid belt all of which in
2:25:32 how do you assume this indicates a
2:25:35 beginning to the solar system
2:25:38 because it's it's like uh forensics it's
2:25:40 an explosion we're working backwards
2:25:42 right okay
2:25:45 so let's let's work backwards let's work
2:25:47 backwards
2:25:48 so what are you doing what's the process
2:25:50 that you're doing
2:25:52 observing what i can see such as
2:25:54 asteroid belts
2:25:56 uh which are tend to be caused by debris
2:25:58 disks from nuclear fusion and you know
2:26:01 they're caused by debris
2:26:05 many other discs that we're looking for
2:26:06 telescope of debris discs and stars of
2:26:09 all different stages of development out
2:26:11 of nebula
2:26:14 how do you know how do you know that the
2:26:16 asteroid belt is a product of a debris
2:26:18 disk
2:26:22 why has anybody observed that
2:26:26 the
2:26:26 process of it well we've observed i
2:26:29 think we've observed supernovas which is
2:26:32 the end of the beginning i i don't know
2:26:33 if we've an actual beginning of a star
2:26:36 because of the time scales involved
2:26:39 stars are created when a nebula when the
2:26:41 gravitational forces in a nebula become
2:26:44 so compressed through nuclear fusion and
2:26:46 gravity that it compresses into one
2:26:48 small spot and then explodes the outer
2:26:50 portions of the nebula then becomes
2:26:52 superheated and blobs fly away causing
2:26:54 cancer
2:26:58 is this an infinite regress
2:27:07 well i mean how about something as
2:27:08 simple as like inflation like
2:27:10 inflationary theory have we ever we i
2:27:12 mean you can of inflation is something
2:27:14 that's gone so i mean would you say the
2:27:16 same thing about inflation like
2:27:17 inflationary theories
2:27:19 inflation is well there's there's
2:27:21 evidence there's a cosmic background
2:27:22 radiation right and we can observe that
2:27:24 everything is coming from a central
2:27:26 point because we can trace it back
2:27:28 because it's moving inflation is
2:27:30 unobservable it's there's no direct
2:27:32 observational evidence for inflation
2:27:33 well it's that's why it's beyond the
2:27:35 cosmic the cosmic microwave background
2:27:37 right
2:27:38 inflation unlike star formation is not
2:27:40 is not a
2:27:42 universally accepted thing
2:27:44 well nobody's back university really
2:27:46 quickly
2:27:47 so really quickly i just want to just
2:27:48 finish this point
2:27:49 what i'm trying to show to you matt is
2:27:51 you're trying to say that because we've
2:27:53 not observed the beginning of the
2:27:55 universe we cannot say that the universe
2:27:57 has a cause yeah unlike ours which we
2:27:59 have other examples of it all different
2:28:01 forms of development so so you you have
2:28:03 that we have no observation of the
2:28:05 beginning of stars according to what you
2:28:07 said
2:28:08 we have no observation
2:28:10 so we have a beginning of an observation
2:28:12 at the beginning of a star
2:28:14 i think that let me here i'll google
2:28:16 this right now have we observed you can
2:28:18 i'll i'll take your word for it man yeah
2:28:19 you say yes to me i'll believe you
2:28:23 have we observed
2:28:25 the beginning
2:28:27 of a star
2:28:30 we've spotted the first stars are not as
2:28:32 far away we know very little about star
2:28:33 formation in the early universe simply
2:28:35 because we have to look so far away i
2:28:36 mean this could get deep in i'm gonna
2:28:37 have to read this but okay fine but
2:28:39 let's say let's say let's say as an
2:28:41 example yes we have yeah
2:28:44 okay
2:28:45 and then you're now what you're doing
2:28:47 this is the thing that's what i'm trying
2:28:48 to
2:28:49 understand is you're taking one
2:28:51 observation
2:28:53 and you're saying this
2:28:55 allows us
2:28:56 to infer another event
2:29:01 we have which is our
2:29:03 star formation
2:29:05 yes
2:29:06 right because we have multiple people
2:29:09 are you making that link based upon
2:29:11 empiricism or logic i'm making that link
2:29:13 based on empiricism if we see 10
2:29:15 chickens hatched from 10 eggs the 11th
2:29:18 egg we we can at least assume that it's
2:29:20 going to produce another challenge oh
2:29:21 how do you make that it's an assumption
2:29:23 if you have 10 chickens it's based on
2:29:26 observations the 11th chicken followed
2:29:28 the same pattern and order as other
2:29:31 empirical observations how is the garden
2:29:33 here it might not even be a fertilized
2:29:35 egg it's a probabilistic argument it
2:29:36 might not even be a fertilized egg but
2:29:38 that's why i'm saying that we derive our
2:29:39 offensive causation from observation
2:29:42 like that's a good this is a good
2:29:43 analogy it makes it a lot more simple
2:29:45 for us you've got
2:29:46 observation of 10 chickens
2:29:48 yeah
2:29:51 and you say the 11th chicken
2:29:53 so the observation 10 chickens hatching
2:29:55 from an egg the 11th chicken you've not
2:29:57 seen hatch from the egg what would you
2:29:59 say about the 11th chicken
2:30:03 i've see i got 11 chickens i saw them
2:30:05 all i saw 10 of them be birthed
2:30:08 but i infer the 11th one came from the
2:30:09 egg yeah yeah because of observation not
2:30:11 because of intuition because i have
2:30:13 observed the protection we're not saying
2:30:15 intuition yeah we're saying you're using
2:30:17 a logical process
2:30:19 yeah but i wouldn't have a framework
2:30:21 in order you're talking about inductive
2:30:24 reasoning in order for me to learn about
2:30:25 inductive reasoning do i go to a science
2:30:27 book or do i go to a philosophy slash
2:30:30 epistemology slash philosophy of science
2:30:32 book where which which who am i going to
2:30:33 go ask about inductive reasoning take
2:30:35 induction and deduction out of it and
2:30:37 just talk about the the you're talking
2:30:38 about induction right now
2:30:42 observation if you it's plato's cave if
2:30:45 you lived in a cave your whole life and
2:30:47 i brought you a chicken and i said do
2:30:49 you know where this came from that's not
2:30:50 what we're not questioning the
2:30:52 reasonableness
2:30:54 we're not questioning the reasonableness
2:30:56 of it we're asking whether it is a
2:30:58 purely empirical process where you have
2:31:00 direct empirical evidence that induction
2:31:03 is true or whether it is a philosophical
2:31:06 slash epistemic
2:31:08 rounding of your knowledge in the first
2:31:10 place
2:31:11 it isn't an empirical process right you
2:31:13 know without the the empiricism has to
2:31:15 come first without those initial
2:31:16 observations you have nothing
2:31:19 no yeah nobody's saying we don't have
2:31:21 you here
2:31:22 i'll give you another example it's used
2:31:23 all the time
2:31:26 you see
2:31:29 a human being walked across the snow
2:31:31 when there was snow on the ground yes
2:31:33 but only because of the initial
2:31:34 observation of the footprints in the
2:31:35 snow but that's not the point matt
2:31:37 that's not the point matt please focus
2:31:39 on the point is i you know probably
2:31:41 sometimes some of these points are
2:31:42 difficult for certain people to
2:31:43 understand because it requires going
2:31:46 outside of your own paradigm of thinking
2:31:48 to sort of really understand it
2:31:50 if we take a purely strictly empirical
2:31:53 approach i only believe in something
2:31:55 based upon my direct experience of that
2:31:58 thing i'm not going to use any
2:31:59 philosophy or any epistemic tools
2:32:03 beyond experience then you can't say
2:32:05 that the sun
2:32:07 you know
2:32:08 had a beginning you'd have to be used
2:32:10 together but you can't have one without
2:32:12 the other you're using it only in
2:32:14 infrared finish my point you'd have to
2:32:15 be agnostic you can't take 10
2:32:18 observations of chickens being born from
2:32:21 an egg
2:32:22 and then say that the 11th chicken which
2:32:24 i haven't observed was born from an egg
2:32:27 because if you take a very strict
2:32:29 scientism uh scientifically or empirical
2:32:32 scientist or whatever you want to say
2:32:34 empirical approach that my knowledge
2:32:36 only arrives from empiricism then you
2:32:39 can't say anything about the 11th
2:32:41 chicken whether it came from an egg or
2:32:42 not
2:32:43 what you do
2:32:45 though naturally and what we do in
2:32:47 science naturally is we use certain
2:32:50 philosophical axioms
2:32:52 like induction to say yes we've got a
2:32:55 set of data and if the data is
2:32:57 sufficiently large enough it allows me
2:32:59 to conclude upon other
2:33:01 observations or other events even if
2:33:04 i've not observed the beginning of that
2:33:06 thing you think that
2:33:08 we have is enough to say that the
2:33:09 universe had a beginning
2:33:12 do you think that we have enough body of
2:33:14 data based on that logic that the
2:33:15 universe had a beginning no that's not
2:33:17 the question the question isn't about
2:33:19 that the question is ultimately about
2:33:22 whether empiricism
2:33:24 and have been a strict fundamentalist
2:33:27 empiricist
2:33:28 would lead you to an inconsistent
2:33:31 approach towards
2:33:36 i haven't observed universe coming to
2:33:38 existence or any other universe coming
2:33:40 to existence would be if as a strict
2:33:43 empiricist to say that i haven't
2:33:46 observed my start in the solar system
2:33:48 coming into existence yeah it would be
2:33:50 exactly of the same nature exactly we
2:33:53 have other examples unless you say
2:33:55 unless you say that i'm going to say
2:33:57 that there's something of the nature of
2:33:59 the universe that allows it to escape
2:34:03 you know this uh general inductive
2:34:05 process of understanding that things
2:34:07 that begin to exist as a cause but your
2:34:09 problem might exist is that what's your
2:34:11 alternative to the universe having a
2:34:14 cause your alternative of the universe
2:34:16 having a cause is the universe just
2:34:18 popped into existence from no questions
2:34:20 my alternative is agnosticism we don't
2:34:22 know it's just like asking me it could
2:34:24 have just been magical but wait sharif
2:34:26 you're uh if i ask you is there gold on
2:34:28 pluto can you please give me an answer
2:34:29 to that question i don't know if there's
2:34:31 gold on pluto okay i don't know where
2:34:32 the universe came from i don't think
2:34:34 anybody else does because there's too
2:34:35 much
2:34:36 you're 50 50 to say it could have been a
2:34:38 cause it could have been magical i'm not
2:34:40 50 50. i'm 10 penrose 10 percent hawking
2:34:43 there is no fifty-fifty are you saying
2:34:45 are you saying within that
2:34:47 the equal equal possibility of it coming
2:34:51 into existence from nothing i can't put
2:34:54 a number on i don't have more
2:34:55 information either it's like i i can
2:34:57 give you the chances of a roulette wheel
2:34:59 coming up black because i know how many
2:35:00 numbers are on there there's there's new
2:35:02 potential explanations coming up every
2:35:03 day so matt matt the discussion matt
2:35:06 just really quickly the discussion is
2:35:07 not about what model of science that's
2:35:10 not the original thing you you raised so
2:35:12 it's not about penroses or sean carrolls
2:35:15 or whoever's yeah the discussion you
2:35:17 came up with say look we don't know how
2:35:20 the universe began so therefore the
2:35:22 universe could have come from without a
2:35:24 course there is no therefore we don't
2:35:26 know how the universe again period
2:35:28 no there's no therefore the beginning
2:35:30 because if i then say therefore i'm
2:35:32 saying i do not have the universe matt
2:35:34 you were arguing you've been arguing for
2:35:35 a long period of time but you were
2:35:36 saying well we've no we've not observed
2:35:38 the beginning of the universe yeah we
2:35:40 observed it we would know where it came
2:35:41 from beginning right so i had a cause
2:35:44 for its beginning
2:35:45 that was that would derive our sense of
2:35:47 causality from observation
2:35:49 yeah exactly so you're saying causality
2:35:52 so you're saying that the universe
2:35:54 itself could have been could have come
2:35:57 into being without a cause
2:35:59 that's not what agnosticism doesn't make
2:36:01 an affirmative statement of what it was
2:36:04 instead i'm just saying i don't just
2:36:06 like you said i don't know if there's
2:36:07 gold on pluto it's a dichotomous
2:36:09 variable there there is or is not gold
2:36:11 on pluto
2:36:12 but you don't know which one it is
2:36:14 matt focus upon what you're actually
2:36:16 arguing yeah okay you're saying first
2:36:19 you said
2:36:20 we
2:36:21 come to the conclusion of causality
2:36:23 through experience yeah and i was trying
2:36:26 to demonstrate that there are
2:36:27 philosophical axioms and epistemic
2:36:29 axioms that or tools that we use like
2:36:32 induction that allows us to interpret
2:36:34 data and evidence that's first thing the
2:36:36 second thing is this is that you were
2:36:39 saying okay because we come to the
2:36:40 conclusion of causality yeah that
2:36:43 something had a cause
2:36:44 because we observe it having a cause
2:36:47 because we've not observed the universe
2:36:48 beginning to exist then we could say
2:36:50 that the universe began to exist but he
2:36:52 didn't have a cause
2:36:54 because we didn't know the universe
2:36:56 yeah
2:36:57 but you're you're not understanding it
2:36:59 yeah and that's what i'm saying maybe it
2:37:00 didn't maybe it had a cause
2:37:02 but we didn't see it except you would
2:37:04 accept matt that the universe could have
2:37:07 come about just like poof
2:37:10 if yeah if that was the evidence then
2:37:12 yes we don't have that without the
2:37:14 evidence i'm saying prior to the
2:37:16 evidence you'll see you're being
2:37:17 agnostic so prior to the evidence you're
2:37:19 saying 50 50.
2:37:21 i'm agnostic
2:37:22 well i wouldn't i wouldn't use it for 50
2:37:24 50 because that implies i could
2:37:25 calculate the odds i would need more
2:37:27 information to even calculate the
2:37:28 chances do i use the rule
2:37:31 there could have been these models of
2:37:32 causes one or
2:37:35 it could have just come from nothing
2:37:37 because we've not experienced the cause
2:37:40 yeah we don't know we're sitting here we
2:37:41 don't know where it came from
2:37:43 so there's a few things firstly i think
2:37:45 you're you're being incredibly
2:37:46 unreasonable
2:37:48 and i think contradictory when you start
2:37:50 to talk about that the universe could
2:37:53 have come about without a course i think
2:37:55 that that sounds if you're adding it
2:37:57 you're putting words in my mouth i'm
2:37:59 saying i don't know where it came from i
2:38:00 don't know and i put it clear though
2:38:03 yeah but i'm sorry
2:38:05 humility that's not unreasonableness so
2:38:08 so matt there's not a problem to say i
2:38:10 don't know the cause
2:38:12 there's a difference saying i don't know
2:38:14 the course they're saying there could be
2:38:16 no cause yeah but yeah they're that
2:38:17 those are both possibilities if that's
2:38:19 the answer before there's no cause or
2:38:21 there could be a cause which is unknown
2:38:23 right right i'm saying that by saying
2:38:25 that there is a beginning event with no
2:38:29 cause
2:38:30 yeah i'm calling that pure magic
2:38:32 it's that magical if we only have one
2:38:35 the special pleading fallacy is not a
2:38:37 fallacy when you only have one example
2:38:39 because it's a special case you need
2:38:41 other examples to compare and contrast
2:38:44 can i can i say something
2:38:47 i'm sorry matt okay so on that last
2:38:49 thing you said just real quick that it
2:38:51 depends on what how how you're you know
2:38:53 classifying things so what do we have
2:38:55 one of well the category universe maybe
2:38:58 fine right but then what do we er
2:39:01 in terms of the set
2:39:04 things that begin to exist or events
2:39:06 that begin to occur
2:39:08 would the beginning of the universe be
2:39:09 classified as only one of that no it's
2:39:13 just in a in a broader set of events
2:39:15 that begin and if it began that then
2:39:18 it's within that set right so it depends
2:39:20 on how you classify things now i think
2:39:22 the main issue here is that i asked i
2:39:25 asked you about inflation let's go back
2:39:26 to inflation you you realize that we
2:39:29 can't directly observe inflation right
2:39:31 no one i don't think says that
2:39:34 no one says what no no one says we
2:39:36 directly observe inflation okay so we
2:39:38 can we can believe things
2:39:40 or infer things
2:39:42 about
2:39:44 you know uh realities that we in
2:39:46 principle cannot observe yeah but i'll
2:39:49 just say this this is important when it
2:39:50 comes to models like influen infinite
2:39:52 inflation things most science they're
2:39:54 all the scientists are very um unsure
2:39:56 about it it's not
2:39:58 none of them are stationary theory has
2:40:00 been one of the best theories out there
2:40:01 about the initial state of the
2:40:04 it it's not it's universe 100 i will say
2:40:07 that i don't think no one this is where
2:40:09 this is again where normally when we're
2:40:10 having discussions with
2:40:12 some atheists online when we're
2:40:14 reasoning all of a sudden when you when
2:40:17 you try to give reasons for a position
2:40:19 they like oh but that's not a hundred
2:40:21 percent when the you know the phrase 100
2:40:24 percent never came out of my mouth i'm
2:40:25 talking about us having reasons to
2:40:27 believe things now we can have reasons
2:40:30 to believe that you know a certain
2:40:32 inflationary theory of believing the
2:40:33 universe is reasonable and you also
2:40:36 acknowledge that we don't have direct
2:40:37 empirical observation of that now based
2:40:39 on these two oh it depends on what you
2:40:41 mean by inflation so big bang cosmology
2:40:44 means that all so all the matter that we
2:40:46 observe in the universe at least all of
2:40:47 the baryonic matter which is about what
2:40:49 four percent of the universe is moving
2:40:51 away from a central point and we can
2:40:53 detect this
2:40:54 so we're all conditioned that's expected
2:40:55 that's not inflation that's post
2:40:57 inflation right yes i'm talking about
2:40:59 inflation okay okay so the singularity
2:41:01 itself that happened before that could
2:41:03 have been infinitely inflating is that
2:41:05 that what you mean
2:41:06 infinitely or not the point is inflation
2:41:10 is something that is not a point that we
2:41:12 can observe right so so right so right
2:41:15 up into a point that we can observe so
2:41:16 there was a so let me just give a give
2:41:18 the old school version of this so
2:41:20 there's a big bang but before that big
2:41:21 bang there's still singularity but it's
2:41:23 too small to detect and it goes
2:41:24 potentially potentially infinitely back
2:41:27 in time gets smaller and smaller
2:41:28 infinitely no no
2:41:30 it's just a few like i don't know
2:41:32 a trillionth of a trillionth of a
2:41:34 trillionth of a second after
2:41:36 uh the big bang
2:41:39 lasted for a very like ridiculously
2:41:41 short period that's similar which is
2:41:43 this exponential ridiculously fast
2:41:46 expansion that they differentiate
2:41:48 between that and then put the post
2:41:51 for the universe to exist for mata to
2:41:53 exist that needed to a process of
2:41:55 inflation which was exponential go for a
2:41:57 particular process period exactly
2:42:00 it's hypothetically it's not improved
2:42:03 your position is it's not reasonable to
2:42:05 hold to that theory is that your
2:42:06 position no it's hypothetical okay now
2:42:09 now if if your position is that it is
2:42:24 not reasonable to assume that there's a
2:42:26 beginning to the universe began because
2:42:28 we can't observe a beginning to the
2:42:30 universe now if that's your only line of
2:42:32 reasoning because that's the only reason
2:42:33 you gave when you first came in i can't
2:42:35 observe it that means i can't believe it
2:42:37 well i can't observe inflation therefore
2:42:39 i can't believe it
2:42:41 there seems to be a contradiction i
2:42:42 don't know i'm going to explain i'm
2:42:43 going to explain why it is an account
2:42:45 edition and this is going to be the
2:42:46 absolute key point abdul
2:42:49 if you if there's snow on the ground you
2:42:51 wake up and you see human footprints in
2:42:53 the snow can you infer that a human
2:42:55 being walked across the snow last night
2:42:57 without you seeing a human
2:42:59 yes
2:43:00 what if you didn't see the footprints
2:43:03 no i can't okay so it still comes down
2:43:06 to observation at the beginning
2:43:10 okay exactly are based on cosmic
2:43:12 background radiation and things like
2:43:13 that so there's still some stationary
2:43:15 models are are basically there to solve
2:43:17 specific problems that we we observe in
2:43:20 the universe they're not there because
2:43:21 of uh
2:43:23 whatever it is whatever it is they have
2:43:25 the nobel prize it's hypothetical
2:43:29 sorry we have a data set that we're
2:43:31 working with and we want a best
2:43:33 explanation for it and these scientific
2:43:35 theories they form mathematical models
2:43:37 and they they they try to come up with
2:43:39 the best explanation of the
2:43:40 observational evidence that
2:43:43 total theory that they're putting
2:43:44 forward doesn't have to conclude
2:43:46 something that is directly observable
2:43:48 like for example dark matter or
2:43:50 inflation or all of that stuff now the
2:43:51 point here is that if that is true
2:43:54 and your principle i'm i am to take your
2:43:57 principle like as i understood it
2:43:58 literally that guys we can't believe
2:44:00 something that we have not observed
2:44:02 then then there is a problem there's a
2:44:04 conflict here right now what we're
2:44:05 telling you is we base
2:44:07 we base our
2:44:09 belief that the universe began to exist
2:44:12 on
2:44:13 a lot of things there is observation
2:44:16 some scientific theories that can be
2:44:17 used as evidence for the position
2:44:19 philosophical reasoning that you cannot
2:44:22 just put aside because you're reasoning
2:44:24 philosophically with me now about how it
2:44:27 is we can achieve reasonable or
2:44:29 unreasonable beliefs
2:44:30 so the point here is that and there's
2:44:33 wide disa there's wide agreement about
2:44:35 this i mean this this uh this it seems
2:44:37 like you're not taking an empiricist
2:44:39 approach it seems like you're appealing
2:44:40 to scientism that in order for me to
2:44:43 have reasonable beliefs about something
2:44:45 it has to be established from within a
2:44:47 scientific paradigm but that's just
2:44:49 absurd because we have all kinds of
2:44:51 beliefs reasonable beliefs that don't
2:44:53 explicitly rely on on on the scientific
2:44:56 method so the point here is that
2:44:59 you're you're talking epistemology and
2:45:01 you're telling me in order for me to
2:45:03 make an inference to the best
2:45:04 explanation using logical and
2:45:06 philosophical and empirical tools about
2:45:09 how a causal series works
2:45:11 i must have direct observation of every
2:45:14 step in that theory or i must have
2:45:16 direct observation of the beginning
2:45:19 of that or or
2:45:21 phenomenon at least yeah but what i just
2:45:23 said right now sounds very ridiculous
2:45:25 you're not realizing that that's your
2:45:26 position but from uh if you're on
2:45:29 that perspective
2:45:30 yeah you're saying i can't we only have
2:45:32 one example of you
2:45:34 i keep not hearing what i'm saying being
2:45:35 reflected by you guys you're not
2:45:36 focusing on the whole one example thing
2:45:38 no i'm not going back to the one example
2:45:40 because i tried to explain to you how
2:45:41 that's delicious one second i'm not
2:45:43 going back to it because i try to
2:45:44 explain to you how it's it's
2:45:46 not fallacious but you're not
2:45:47 understanding how these things work like
2:45:49 it depends on how i classify things so
2:45:51 it's not one example the beginning of
2:45:52 the universe is not one example if i'm
2:45:55 classifying it under the set of things
2:45:57 that begin to exist i have many examples
2:45:59 of that and what i applied to one will
2:46:02 apply to the others if i generalize it
2:46:04 if you're talking about the universe as
2:46:06 in the universe as a whole as in the
2:46:08 universe that's a whole above you know
2:46:10 every all its constituents that we have
2:46:12 one of that then it's not even clear
2:46:14 what that means i mean where is that one
2:46:17 but that's
2:46:18 the there these are very weak objections
2:46:21 matt they're not even the main
2:46:22 objections out there in the literature
2:46:23 by professional philosophers
2:46:26 because you're trying to avoid the
2:46:27 question of can you tell me you that if
2:46:29 you only have one example ever of
2:46:31 something and we don't we didn't see
2:46:32 where it came what did i just say can
2:46:34 you infer can you reflect what i just
2:46:36 said about this things that begin to
2:46:38 exist
2:46:39 matt i just said something about this
2:46:42 i just said something about the set of
2:46:44 things that begin to exist
2:46:46 things all exist within the universe
2:46:48 no way
2:46:50 let me finish the
2:46:52 i'm not done with the question i just
2:46:53 said something about the set of things
2:46:56 that begin to exist in response to what
2:46:58 you're saying about how we can't you
2:47:01 know make these inferences because we
2:47:02 have one example of this thing so in
2:47:04 response i said it
2:47:06 i i i critiqued the way you're
2:47:08 classifying things and i said that if
2:47:12 i'm classifying it as something that
2:47:14 begins to exist then i have many
2:47:16 examples of that can you explain reason
2:47:18 with that point and tell me what i mean
2:47:21 i'm responding to you i agree that there
2:47:23 are many examples of things that begin
2:47:24 to exist the column cosmological
2:47:26 argument says everything that begins to
2:47:28 exist
2:47:29 has a cause
2:47:30 so the fact that you have many examples
2:47:33 doesn't get you to everything
2:47:35 then we were just reversible
2:47:37 you were just reasoning inductively
2:47:39 about the chickens that if you saw 10
2:47:41 chickens you're going to assume the
2:47:42 eleventh that's a generalized
2:47:44 probabilistic argument i also said how
2:47:45 am i making a probabilistic argument i'm
2:47:48 not saying i know but the column is not
2:47:50 because the akalam says everything so
2:47:51 we're at one that's not true
2:47:54 again i but i i literally okay so i
2:47:56 think we're gonna have to end because
2:47:57 people are waiting but i matt i
2:47:59 literally explained this to you please
2:48:00 go back when when the stream is done and
2:48:02 listen to when you were typing in there
2:48:04 i
2:48:05 just explained this very point to you
2:48:07 that the premise in an argument
2:48:10 can be this you know
2:48:12 you know can be generalized in the way
2:48:15 the the first premise of the kalam is
2:48:17 that does not necessitate that the
2:48:19 defense for the premise
2:48:22 is a logical necessity that entails the
2:48:24 premise that's not this that's that's
2:48:27 not a necessity whatsoever it's not even
2:48:30 a logical necessity it may be
2:48:32 empirically untrue i know you discuss
2:48:34 quantum mechanics yes there may be other
2:48:35 examples of things where that we don't
2:48:37 know if they began to exist so the first
2:48:40 premise is unsound if it uses premise is
2:48:42 not about whether things begin to exist
2:48:44 it's about if they do then they have a
2:48:46 cause so don't confuse premises now
2:48:48 everything
2:48:49 you're saying that it's unreasonable to
2:48:51 believe that it's so if something begins
2:48:53 to exist that has a cause are you saying
2:48:54 it's unreasonable to believe that
2:48:58 is it unreasonable to believe that if
2:49:01 something begins to exist it has a
2:49:03 reason why it began to exist
2:49:06 is that an unreasonable principle to
2:49:08 hold to
2:49:09 we don't have enough information
2:49:13 my question is whether it's unreasonable
2:49:14 overwhelming majority of things that we
2:49:16 have observed we can see an antecedent
2:49:20 but we're talking about the clock so is
2:49:21 it unreasonable that's a simple question
2:49:24 is it unreasonable to hold to the
2:49:25 principle that guys something began to
2:49:27 exist there's an explanation
2:49:30 of quantum mechanics yeah okay fine
2:49:32 thank you so the causal principle is
2:49:34 unreasonable i think if if we reach that
2:49:36 point
2:49:37 i don't think we can reason then than uh
2:49:40 and i i don't think it's consistent
2:49:41 because i think i think generally
2:49:43 generally
2:49:44 generally the fact that within science
2:49:47 the scientific method we observe new
2:49:50 like novel phenomenon and we try to
2:49:52 build theories around it and explain it
2:49:54 before necessarily seeing the cause
2:49:56 means that our intuitions are completely
2:49:58 counter to what you're saying right now
2:50:00 we're not agnostic about things in the
2:50:02 sense that we see this new like novel
2:50:04 phenomenon and we're like you know what
2:50:06 let's be agnostic about it withhold
2:50:07 judgment but then let's try to explain
2:50:09 it at the same time we generally lean
2:50:11 very strongly towards the idea that the
2:50:13 phenomenon has an explanation regardless
2:50:16 of whether whether
2:50:18 what it is even when we're talking about
2:50:20 cosmologists and how they work with the
2:50:22 beginning of the universe and what
2:50:23 explains it they don't just stop at a
2:50:25 singularity that's it why do you have
2:50:27 cyclical models of the universe
2:50:31 why is penrose doing everything he's
2:50:32 doing it's because he didn't stop at
2:50:34 that point and be like you know what i
2:50:35 don't even need to ask why what is
2:50:38 beyond this point because i don't know
2:50:39 whether things have a cause when they
2:50:41 begin to exist
2:50:43 like that
2:50:44 no wait but you're you're you're doing
2:50:46 that but generally i'm saying the
2:50:47 scientists that you appeal to they don't
2:50:48 do that they're they're working
2:50:51 that's why they're still looking they
2:50:52 don't just say oh my work is done here
2:50:54 so are you saying they're looking yeah
2:50:55 but at the same time they they have no
2:50:57 idea they're agnostic about whether or
2:50:58 not
2:50:59 an explanation let me just say this it
2:51:01 would be abdul it would be unreasonable
2:51:04 if i asked you is there gold on pluto
2:51:06 and made you give the answer now with
2:51:08 the incomplete data matt matt that's not
2:51:10 the point that's not the point um
2:51:13 these scientists that are looking for
2:51:15 the beginning the cause of the beginning
2:51:16 of the universe will they ever have
2:51:19 direct observational data of a universe
2:51:22 beginning to exist
2:51:24 how do i know that i don't know
2:51:26 no they wouldn't
2:51:28 unless we miraculously saw a universe
2:51:31 begin to exist we wouldn't have that
2:51:33 data well no but there might be a
2:51:35 multiverse there's multiple pieces of
2:51:36 evidence from a multiverse or dark
2:51:37 matter
2:51:41 how are the current scientists
2:51:43 cosmologists
2:51:44 developing theories about the beginnings
2:51:47 of the universe how are they doing it
2:51:48 are they doing it because they're saying
2:51:50 i have to see we have to go out there
2:51:52 you know look for a universe that begins
2:51:55 to exist
2:51:56 is that how they're doing it
2:51:58 well they're doing because they're
2:52:00 curious they don't know what what what
2:52:02 no i'm saying why no i'm not asking why
2:52:04 they're doing it i'm just asking how are
2:52:07 they doing it are they doing it by
2:52:09 looking for
2:52:11 some region of space where the universe
2:52:13 begins to exist
2:52:14 or are they doing it by trying to infer
2:52:18 based upon the current observations
2:52:21 that the best explanation would be some
2:52:23 sort of causal
2:52:25 factor that would explain the particular
2:52:29 events that he gave rise to the universe
2:52:31 how would it be
2:52:32 although there is inference involved the
2:52:34 observation is still hugely key that's
2:52:36 why we're getting lost
2:52:39 yeah but matt what's the observation
2:52:42 the observation is not the beginning of
2:52:44 the universe is it
2:52:46 well we there may be multi-verses and
2:52:48 they're trying to figure out where dark
2:52:49 matter is maybe in other public
2:52:50 universes but yes they're looking for
2:52:52 observation
2:52:54 if there are
2:52:59 what you're saying to me is that the
2:53:01 current cosmologists are looking for
2:53:04 universes that begin to exist and until
2:53:07 they see a universe that begins exist
2:53:09 does the word begin to exist but yeah
2:53:12 well what what are they what
2:53:14 i think sharif we're reaching no no no
2:53:16 no i want to get really good let me do
2:53:18 this
2:53:21 i've been waiting for a while yeah
2:53:24 do you understand dark matter and
2:53:26 singularities
2:53:28 yeah i do okay do you understand why so
2:53:31 we've been looking for dark matter for
2:53:32 decades right why why why we don't
2:53:36 yeah
2:53:36 because we're curious
2:53:38 because we noticed because we didn't
2:53:40 detect its gravity
2:53:42 what we can detect its gravity so we
2:53:44 want to see what is causing it
2:53:49 how do we detect its gravity
2:53:51 this an infinite regress question
2:53:53 are we going to go back
2:53:55 then i say this and then how do we come
2:53:57 up with the math you don't get it he's
2:53:59 asking you that because your
2:54:00 observations lead you to it based on the
2:54:03 fact that you're assuming there's that
2:54:05 explanation for it you're not just
2:54:06 saying oh you know what there might or
2:54:08 might not be an explanation you're
2:54:09 saying there's darkness
2:54:11 this is happening
2:54:13 so matt let me explain to you man
2:54:17 what people have observed what
2:54:18 scientists have observed is that
2:54:20 galaxies rotate yeah and that the speed
2:54:23 of the rotation of the orbits of the
2:54:26 stars at the outer edges of galaxies are
2:54:29 faster than this than they should be
2:54:32 according to the current knowledge of
2:54:33 the theory of gravity yeah and current
2:54:36 current understanding of the laws of
2:54:37 gravity that those stars towards the
2:54:40 edges of galaxies should be slower in
2:54:42 their rotation and orbit speed yeah
2:54:45 do you understand that point i'm not
2:54:47 sure that's true galaxies rotate very
2:54:49 differently than planets around this
2:54:51 stone
2:54:52 together it's like a pinwheel matt the
2:54:54 stars in the in in in a
2:54:57 inner part of the galaxy
2:54:59 should be orbiting faster than the stars
2:55:02 at the outer edges of the galaxies now
2:55:04 what they've observed this is the
2:55:06 observation part here is that the stars
2:55:08 on the outer edges of the galaxies are
2:55:11 orbiting at a faster rate than they
2:55:13 should do according to the laws of
2:55:15 gravity
2:55:18 you'll have to send me a paper and then
2:55:19 i don't know that's not open that's how
2:55:21 they this is how this is the reason why
2:55:23 they talk about dark matter well one of
2:55:24 the key reasons why they're talking no
2:55:26 it's not
2:55:27 it's okay what's the reason matt give
2:55:28 him the reason give me what it is
2:55:30 whatever
2:55:31 before before let me explain okay
2:55:34 but before it gives you a reason so so
2:55:36 this is one of the key observations and
2:55:38 then what they did is they said okay
2:55:40 we've got two possibilities yeah
2:55:43 they remember there wasn't three
2:55:44 possibilities there's only two the first
2:55:46 possibility is we have to modify the
2:55:48 theory of gravity and then he said well
2:55:50 hold on that's pretty
2:55:52 profound because theory of gravity is
2:55:54 pretty well established here
2:55:56 the second possibility is to say
2:55:58 actually there is an effect that we're
2:56:01 seeing which must be caused by something
2:56:04 that we cannot see
2:56:06 doesn't so they're assuming causality
2:56:08 here
2:56:09 and therefore they're saying well if
2:56:11 there's something that's causing gravity
2:56:14 to allow for this emotion of stars to be
2:56:18 at the same speed but not break uh the
2:56:21 orbit uh of the galaxy yeah and go out
2:56:25 into into interstellar space yeah then
2:56:29 there must be something that's causing
2:56:30 that gravity which itself is not
2:56:33 affected by photons of light
2:56:35 hence they talk about dark matter
2:56:38 yeah and they therefore say this is
2:56:40 there must be something but it's heavy
2:56:42 neutrinos or whatever it is yeah or
2:56:43 neutrinos that there must be something
2:56:46 that is not affected by photons of light
2:56:48 but has effect upon gravity or
2:56:51 space-time yeah and therefore has effect
2:56:54 upon and in fact they they even went
2:56:55 further and said the majority of the
2:56:57 universe would be composed of this uh
2:57:00 dark matter in order to make sense
2:57:04 so in that process what they're doing is
2:57:06 seeing an observation they're seeing an
2:57:08 observation
2:57:09 without even seeing the cause for the
2:57:12 observation they've already implicitly
2:57:15 understood there must be a cause and now
2:57:17 they're trying to explain that cause
2:57:19 whether that's dark matter or whether
2:57:21 that is having to change the theory of
2:57:23 gravity in order to fit the new
2:57:26 observational data there is a cause this
2:57:28 is the observation
2:57:29 they've seen the footprints only because
2:57:31 of the observation they've seen the
2:57:32 footprints in the snow
2:57:34 what
2:57:42 we've been through the exact same thing
2:57:43 with inflation he thinks we're saying
2:57:45 that we're making these inferences based
2:57:47 on zero observation we're not saying
2:57:48 that we observe causality there's
2:57:50 considerations about time and then we
2:57:53 make based on these observations and
2:57:55 these considerations and philosophical
2:57:57 points certain inferences about what
2:57:59 must best explain them now the point
2:58:01 here is that we made the same point
2:58:02 about inflation sharif made it to about
2:58:04 dark matter there is a phenomenon there
2:58:06 is observation and based on that
2:58:08 observation
2:58:09 simply because of the fact or the
2:58:12 assumption that there must be something
2:58:14 that explains this phenomenon i mean
2:58:16 nobody observed dark matter so it's not
2:58:18 inductive in the sense that oh dark
2:58:20 matter we know based on observation that
2:58:22 it always climbs
2:58:24 causes this kind of stuff therefore the
2:58:26 next observation we see that's similar
2:58:28 we assume no it's based on a
2:58:30 set of data where you make this you know
2:58:32 a a theory that best explains
2:58:36 uh uh uh uh same imaginations based on
2:58:38 the assumptions they call it must have
2:58:40 because they don't understand it they've
2:58:41 they're trying to oh because in effect
2:58:43 it's not affected by photons of light
2:58:45 and obviously very hard to detect but
2:58:47 matt the point here is this and this is
2:58:49 maybe what i'm trying to say dr manny's
2:58:50 trying to say is that what science does
2:58:53 is it takes a set of data sets of
2:58:55 observations
2:58:56 and it presupposes an underlying cause
2:59:00 even if it doesn't have direct
2:59:03 observation of that cause yeah it will
2:59:06 use what we call an abductive process
2:59:08 best explanation to explain the
2:59:11 observation because it assumes that the
2:59:14 observations are not random they're
2:59:16 underpinned by a pattern yeah a law a
2:59:20 system that allows
2:59:22 for utilitarian purposes
2:59:24 they're hoping to fight they're hoping
2:59:25 to make the greatest the next big
2:59:26 discovery no no no no no no
2:59:28 okay let's okay now okay okay let's not
2:59:30 go there so right now
2:59:32 right now
2:59:33 right now right now you're saying that
2:59:35 these scientists are assuming a specific
2:59:37 position in the philosophy of science
2:59:39 called instrumentalism
2:59:41 i'm i'm confident matt no disrespectful
2:59:43 there's two men for utilitarian purposes
2:59:45 so you're saying that
2:59:47 we must
2:59:48 only
2:59:49 believe inside believe that scientific
2:59:51 theories are instrumentally useful
2:59:53 you're taking a non-realist view about
2:59:56 science and you're saying that it's true
2:59:58 this is a philosophical position no
3:00:00 empirical evidence for it uh um
3:00:03 so i don't see why you you guys keep
3:00:06 talking philosophy while saying that
3:00:08 it's not reliable for us to come to
3:00:10 conclusions about the world can you
3:00:12 understand all we're doing here is
3:00:13 talking philosophy and epistemology
3:00:15 we're discussing basic concepts
3:00:18 you're requiring direct observational
3:00:20 evidence
3:00:22 from i'm sorry matthew
3:00:30 you're missing the point i think you're
3:00:31 really missing the point yeah you don't
3:00:33 have any observation of where the
3:00:35 universe came from but you think you
3:00:36 know that's the point no no no that's
3:00:38 not the point the the what you're
3:00:39 missing the point is this is a few
3:00:42 things firstly is that observation plus
3:00:44 certain you know epistemic tools we use
3:00:48 and ideas in order to come to certain
3:00:50 conclusions irrespective of whether we
3:00:52 directly observe that so it doesn't
3:00:54 matter
3:00:56 you still need that base you still need
3:00:57 that observation yeah
3:01:01 so what abdullah has said we have these
3:01:03 observations that things that begin to
3:01:04 exist have a cause just like we have
3:01:06 observations that stars that begin to
3:01:09 exist have a particular mechanism and
3:01:11 then we can infer and we can say okay
3:01:13 well inductively saying that allows us
3:01:16 to say that our sun which is a star
3:01:17 would also follow the same pattern even
3:01:19 if i've not directly observed it that's
3:01:22 first thing secondly is that when we
3:01:23 talk about the beginning of the universe
3:01:25 and when even scientists talk about the
3:01:26 beginning of the universe the
3:01:27 observational data that they're looking
3:01:29 for is not another universe that begins
3:01:32 to exist
3:01:33 all they're looking for is they take a
3:01:35 particular theoretical model they then
3:01:37 look at if this theoretical model is
3:01:39 true we should see this this and this
3:01:41 data for example just very briefly
3:01:44 the cyclic uh conformal cosmology that
3:01:47 roger penrose talks about which
3:01:48 basically says that the universe
3:01:51 that our universe is a product of a
3:01:52 previous universe yeah
3:01:54 the reason why he says that he says this
3:01:57 universe the previous universe dies out
3:01:59 so it's a heat death that your
3:02:01 matter is exhausted that all you're left
3:02:04 with photons that now you have photons
3:02:07 which have no mass which are traveling
3:02:09 the speed of light and therefore their
3:02:12 geometry is basically they could be next
3:02:14 to each other or be you know
3:02:16 infinitely far apart it doesn't make any
3:02:18 difference because they will be seen as
3:02:20 uh
3:02:21 you know the geometry would be seen
3:02:23 exactly the same he then says that as a
3:02:26 result of that situation is very
3:02:28 analogous to a quantum singularity which
3:02:30 causes the big bang so therefore he then
3:02:32 said this synth caused another big bang
3:02:34 he then says the observational data this
3:02:37 is the key point the observational data
3:02:39 to substantiate or to support his
3:02:41 particular theory he had that there was
3:02:43 a previous universe is that in a
3:02:45 previous universe like this universe
3:02:47 there would be collisions of black holes
3:02:49 which would leave ripples in space and
3:02:52 these ripples in space would be detected
3:02:54 in the background microwave radiation
3:02:57 he's the concentric circles within the
3:03:01 background microwave radiation
3:03:03 if it is assumed that there was a
3:03:06 previous universe in which you had
3:03:08 collisions of black holes we should see
3:03:11 these ripples today he said because we
3:03:13 haven't seen those ripples today it's
3:03:15 been disproved or it's not substantiated
3:03:18 and therefore it's considered just a
3:03:19 fanciful idea and nothing more but look
3:03:23 at what reggie penrose is doing he's
3:03:25 saying observational data today
3:03:28 to construct an understanding
3:03:31 based upon principles of causality that
3:03:34 there was some sort of explanation of
3:03:36 the universe yeah he's not saying let's
3:03:39 look for a universe that begins to exist
3:03:42 yeah that's not what he's doing
3:03:44 does that make hopefully
3:03:46 i'm talking about i that all made
3:03:47 perfect sense but you're talking about
3:03:48 two different things that's just what
3:03:49 one person is doing
3:03:51 no no no
3:03:53 it was good having you on now we have to
3:03:55 move on but matt i i swear i don't say
3:03:57 this with any disrespect but i would
3:03:59 advise you for the next discussion for
3:04:00 the next time you come on just read a
3:04:02 short introduction to the philosophy of
3:04:04 science and show another one on
3:04:07 epistemology
3:04:08 just to get a basic idea because really
3:04:10 this is a very messy discussion where
3:04:12 we're talking about very basic concepts
3:04:14 but it's very difficult to pin you down
3:04:16 on one point because the concepts are
3:04:18 very confused in your head so i'm i'm
3:04:21 saying this
3:04:22 i don't want any disrespect by this but
3:04:24 it's impossible to get through to you
3:04:26 when these very basic concepts are just
3:04:29 found fundamentally confused in the way
3:04:31 you're reasoning here if you give me 60
3:04:34 60 sixty seconds i will close it
3:04:37 go ahead my point was
3:04:40 you we derive our sense of causation
3:04:43 from observation i will concede
3:04:45 at least in part
3:04:48 we
3:04:49 there you go
3:04:50 and we have we only have one example of
3:04:52 the universe
3:04:53 we have not observed its beginning
3:04:55 therefore we cannot say it began
3:04:56 that's a reasonable position because we
3:04:58 only have one
3:05:00 period
3:05:00 all the rest of that discussion i think
3:05:02 was well not all of it a lot of it was
3:05:04 extraneous
3:05:05 but thanks for watching
3:05:07 okay thank you for coming on thanks for
3:05:08 coming on matt good good having you
3:05:10 always have a good one guys take care
3:05:13 bye
3:05:14 so we have muhammad here
3:05:30 yeah so i my uh i have one point to
3:05:33 discuss uh may not be directly related
3:05:35 to karam
3:05:36 argument
3:05:37 uh but uh
3:05:39 generally cosmological uh arguments uh
3:05:42 so i see that this goes on about
3:05:45 infinite regress and
3:05:46 yeah potential or actual infinities and
3:05:49 so on
3:05:50 uh
3:05:51 so i
3:05:52 i was thinking about this i uh thought
3:05:54 about some different way
3:05:56 i'm not sure whether
3:05:58 you can
3:05:59 people have worked on this uh this kind
3:06:01 of thing
3:06:02 so
3:06:04 so i was thinking in terms of only
3:06:06 numbers
3:06:07 so if we say that let's say
3:06:10 uh
3:06:12 say number five how how can we uh
3:06:15 explain number five so one way is the
3:06:18 uh
3:06:19 number five exists on its own or uh it
3:06:22 exists uh it has some explanation
3:06:24 outside of number five like contingency
3:06:27 or unnecessary
3:06:29 uh so five uh we can explain it in terms
3:06:31 of two plus three or uh
3:06:34 four uh four plus one and something
3:06:37 so
3:06:39 so it has no uh it's it's contingent
3:06:41 number
3:06:42 so if we go on this road uh we'll come
3:06:44 to uh only one number uh which exists on
3:06:47 its own that is number one
3:06:49 uh so
3:06:51 uh
3:06:52 so is it um do you agree
3:06:56 uh do you agree with what that uh number
3:06:59 two is dependent on number one yes yes
3:07:02 yes and all other numbers
3:07:05 uh in a certain sense
3:07:08 yeah so
3:07:09 uh all other numbers so either it is
3:07:11 natural number or integers or any even
3:07:14 if we so go for beyond countable
3:07:17 infinity like real numbers or
3:07:19 the moment we talk about numbers we are
3:07:21 assuming
3:07:22 uh so all it is based on so we are
3:07:25 assuming there exists a set of numbers
3:07:27 that is natural numbers or real numbers
3:07:29 or complex numbers and so on and all of
3:07:32 them
3:07:33 derive their existence from number one
3:07:36 so number one uh seems to be the
3:07:38 necessary existence
3:07:41 uh
3:07:42 so uh number one uh i mean it turns uh
3:07:45 like i was thinking like this in this
3:07:47 sense and number one is
3:07:48 uh allah is one of the name right so
3:07:51 it's always
3:07:52 the one
3:07:53 so number one actually is an attribute
3:07:55 of allah and that is
3:07:57 uh necessary
3:07:59 uh and we can see it so it's uh so when
3:08:02 we talk about necessary contingency and
3:08:04 so on it's uh it's quite awake we don't
3:08:07 really understand what is necessary uh
3:08:09 we don't see it but we can see number
3:08:11 one in only num uh number sense if we
3:08:14 just consider numbers all other numbers
3:08:16 are dependent on number one and number
3:08:18 one
3:08:19 uh needs no explanation outside of
3:08:21 itself
3:08:24 oh isn't it amazing yeah
3:08:28 so what what's the point like what's the
3:08:31 the conclusion
3:08:32 yeah the conclusion is uh
3:08:35 uh
3:08:36 i hope your conclusion is not god is a
3:08:38 number
3:08:40 no no no no i mean uh these are all
3:08:42 abstractions my number is an abstraction
3:08:44 so when we are talking about these
3:08:46 numbers so all these uh num uh
3:08:50 the
3:08:51 number one is again it's uh it's
3:08:53 deriving from the attribute of allah
3:08:54 where does number one come from
3:08:56 so if we ask that it's directly from
3:08:58 it's an attribute of allah
3:09:01 so all his attributes are eternal or
3:09:04 necessary by nature so one of the one
3:09:06 other attribute is
3:09:08 the truth uh so we cannot uh when we
3:09:11 think about truth itself uh like various
3:09:14 theories of
3:09:16 whether
3:09:17 coherence theory or correspondence
3:09:18 theory
3:09:20 truth also appears to be necessary we
3:09:22 cannot
3:09:23 get out of truth so even the
3:09:26 concept of truth is necessary similarly
3:09:29 the concept of oneness is also necessary
3:09:33 so regardless of so if we just see let's
3:09:36 say now uh let me come to
3:09:38 uh relate this to cosmological arguments
3:09:40 like this so if we have
3:09:42 um let's say i assume
3:09:46 uh every a being or everything in the
3:09:49 universe is is attach every everything
3:09:52 in the universe to a number so associate
3:09:55 everything to a number
3:09:56 and uh let's say it's all dependent from
3:09:58 one
3:10:00 yeah they're all dependent on one so
3:10:02 everything comes yeah i i
3:10:04 yeah so i'm not sure i don't think i
3:10:06 think you've got to be really careful
3:10:07 with these types of arguments
3:10:09 i think what you're probably saying is
3:10:11 that uh you know numbers are abstract
3:10:14 entities yeah and maybe you could argue
3:10:17 that only the only abstract entity that
3:10:20 is necessary that gives explanation to
3:10:22 all of the numbers is the number one
3:10:24 yeah but that doesn't really tell us
3:10:26 anything about uh
3:10:29 the
3:10:30 the the nature of the physical world or
3:10:32 the concrete existence
3:10:34 all you have is abstract entities
3:10:36 and a proposition that number one
3:10:39 is necessary in order for the
3:10:41 mathematics to work yeah i wouldn't go
3:10:43 beyond that this is dangerous because
3:10:45 then you're getting into
3:10:48 especially when you start to try to link
3:10:50 the attributes and names of allah
3:10:53 these types of theories yeah i don't
3:10:55 think you need to i think uh jake and
3:10:57 other brothers discuss the
3:10:59 a form of a transcendental argument
3:11:02 which says that necessary propositions
3:11:04 need to be grounded in a necessary
3:11:07 concrete uh
3:11:09 consciousness or mind yeah
3:11:12 so um
3:11:14 yeah so
3:11:16 you know that that's probably a better
3:11:18 argument to go down
3:11:20 uh if you understand that point that if
3:11:22 you've got necessary propositions
3:11:26 a proposition which is like a a
3:11:27 meaningful statement has some sort of
3:11:29 mental content within it yeah like one
3:11:32 plus one equals two yeah or any other
3:11:34 mathematical uh proposition that you
3:11:37 want to have which you believe is
3:11:39 necessary
3:11:41 i have uh actually one more uh
3:11:43 which is related to uh i think
3:11:45 instead of using contingency and
3:11:48 necessary it's better to use
3:11:50 derived and fundamental
3:11:53 so something is derived because one plus
3:11:55 one might be necessary but it's not
3:11:56 fundamental it depends upon one it
3:11:59 depends upon plus the addition and there
3:12:02 are many things even though it's a
3:12:03 necessary fact right it's not
3:12:04 fundamental on its own
3:12:06 so yeah
3:12:07 yeah so
3:12:09 you can say dependent and independent
3:12:11 isn't it really
3:12:12 something yeah independent something's
3:12:14 independent
3:12:16 so unnecessary yeah you're right a
3:12:18 necessary proposition
3:12:20 could be dependent
3:12:22 yeah or could be derived from something
3:12:23 yeah yeah
3:12:25 uh yeah or grounded as a grounding
3:12:28 relationship
3:12:30 yes
3:12:31 uh i mean it's uh i understand what you
3:12:33 say i'm just saying that uh let's say
3:12:36 for a for a ultra skeptic uh who is the
3:12:40 uh who doesn't want to accept so it's
3:12:43 this cosmological argument they
3:12:45 maximumly get you to some sort of
3:12:47 decision so
3:12:49 even
3:12:51 so a person who doesn't want to even
3:12:53 acknowledge that
3:12:55 so one way i was thinking one way of
3:12:57 saying that is if you attach one number
3:13:00 to uh
3:13:02 let's say uh anything in the universe
3:13:04 you have to have come down to number one
3:13:06 so without assuming number one yeah
3:13:09 there is some entity that there exists
3:13:11 an entity which for which you have to
3:13:13 give one number one right
3:13:15 so that uh
3:13:17 that entity you are assuming by when you
3:13:20 say that something exists you are
3:13:22 assuming there is some source which
3:13:24 comes out where everything comes out
3:13:27 so we have an example here in an
3:13:29 abstract sense
3:13:30 uh in the form of numbers
3:13:34 yeah you know i understand
3:13:35 yeah yeah i think i think you you but
3:13:38 you'll fall into the
3:13:39 the one of the possible contentions is
3:13:41 just simply saying well yeah even if you
3:13:44 they would probably say well why apply
3:13:45 numbers to these things why give them
3:13:48 numbers and the second thing is just
3:13:49 let's just take it as that they're
3:13:51 dependent things and that you have an
3:13:53 interdependent
3:13:54 infinite changes infinite chain of
3:13:56 interdependent things you know and an
3:13:59 infinite regress
3:14:01 so maybe they would argue yeah various
3:14:03 things like that and i think that's
3:14:04 where you start to talk about
3:14:06 causal finitism
3:14:08 uh and you know problems of
3:14:11 forming an actual infinite through
3:14:12 successive addition
3:14:14 yeah i mean uh just let me add on to
3:14:16 this so any person who says that uh
3:14:19 there is some let's say circular
3:14:21 causality or uh circular infinite chain
3:14:25 and coherent chain which there is no
3:14:27 necessary foundation
3:14:29 so all he has to do is uh just come up
3:14:32 with a number system
3:14:34 without
3:14:35 us
3:14:36 something uh without a number one
3:14:39 so any num just come up can in any in
3:14:42 history of uh human civilization no
3:14:44 number system has existed without number
3:14:46 one
3:14:47 so uh even if we assume that we grant
3:14:50 that
3:14:51 so
3:14:52 that doesn't seem like uh you can get to
3:14:55 it so i understand you cannot
3:14:57 take this argument and say that
3:14:59 uh so you uh
3:15:01 you have to uh you cannot tell him that
3:15:04 okay get me a number system and he will
3:15:06 say my burden of proof is not on me and
3:15:08 so on
3:15:09 uh
3:15:11 that's fine but uh if if we just
3:15:13 intuitively say this many people will
3:15:16 recognize this that there is some
3:15:17 necessary thing foundational thing uh
3:15:20 without which you cannot derive things
3:15:22 so there is there is there are
3:15:24 derivative things around us derived
3:15:26 things
3:15:27 and there must be something fundamental
3:15:31 so
3:15:32 i mean this is just an intro it makes
3:15:34 intuitive sense to people i i feel like
3:15:36 that
3:15:37 maybe yeah and i agree with you i think
3:15:39 it makes intuitive sense and then
3:15:41 you know unless you're gonna go down the
3:15:43 line of well you know
3:15:45 there's everything is dependent upon
3:15:48 something and then ultimately that one
3:15:50 thing
3:15:51 is dependent but it just came about by
3:15:54 not by nothing it just
3:15:56 an effect without a cause
3:15:58 yeah something that began to exist
3:15:59 without any particular
3:16:01 explanation of course for it beginning
3:16:03 to exist
3:16:04 yeah you get people like that and then
3:16:06 obviously they're being
3:16:09 unintuitive they're contradicting what
3:16:11 we you know understands as axioms of
3:16:13 thought and also
3:16:14 uh they will be uh contradicting what we
3:16:18 inductively understand about the nature
3:16:20 of the universe as well uh and even
3:16:22 beyond yeah so i know i i
3:16:25 yeah so i generally the conclusion i
3:16:27 agree with i'd have to look at and speak
3:16:28 to you maybe more about more of your
3:16:30 specific details of your argumentation i
3:16:33 just uh i'm concerned that you've got to
3:16:35 be a bit careful
3:16:36 you know say using mathematics to come
3:16:39 to a certain conclusion
3:16:41 and then applying the names of allah
3:16:43 just in case that you know
3:16:45 this is not the the you know the way you
3:16:47 know obviously you know because we don't
3:16:48 say
3:16:49 we don't talk about mathematical others
3:16:52 are being mathematics or anything like
3:16:53 that yeah that's uh that's right but
3:16:56 one way is we know even in islam we say
3:16:58 that we can know allah only through his
3:17:01 names we cannot actually know his
3:17:03 essence right
3:17:04 yeah that's right
3:17:06 yeah only when we concentrate on his
3:17:07 names and attributes then only we can
3:17:09 get to know him
3:17:11 yeah of course we cannot apply this to
3:17:12 all his attributes because uh
3:17:15 all these other attributes cannot be
3:17:18 reason with the way we can reason with
3:17:19 the numbers right uh yeah yeah
3:17:23 so uh
3:17:24 yeah yeah i think we're gonna have to
3:17:26 move on uh yeah to our next guest but
3:17:29 jazok look ahead for uh okay
3:17:31 thank you for having the show
3:17:32 joker
3:17:35 like himself
3:17:44 uh how are you brothers uh so i have a
3:17:47 my question is kind of related i mean it
3:17:49 is a little off topic but
3:17:52 what do you guys think about
3:17:55 the speculative theology in islam
3:17:58 i mean i mean a lot of
3:18:00 you know our salafi scholars say that it
3:18:03 it does more harm than good
3:18:06 especially for a person i mean we should
3:18:09 strictly just follow what quran and
3:18:11 hadith says instead of going into you
3:18:14 know the rational
3:18:16 side of things
3:18:18 so i don't know if
3:18:20 jake or the other brothers want to take
3:18:22 that or
3:18:24 yeah i'm just posting a video in the
3:18:26 chat uh that i did with um
3:18:29 from my channel with dr suffolk chow g
3:18:31 that
3:18:32 i would recommend watching where
3:18:35 we discuss this question and we go
3:18:37 through basically the
3:18:39 the positives uh positives and negatives
3:18:42 of uh canaan
3:18:44 and um
3:18:45 yeah i mean what's your specific
3:18:47 question about exactly
3:18:50 uh so i mean i was seeing a lot of
3:18:52 people in live chat too say i'm saying
3:18:54 that logic is haram and
3:18:56 you know those type of questions i mean
3:18:58 these type of comments making and
3:19:00 i mean i didn't see any of that the
3:19:02 whole time
3:19:09 but specifically i mean
3:19:12 you know
3:19:12 just just really quickly yes there's two
3:19:15 discussions yeah this first discussion
3:19:17 which is
3:19:18 ca how how does how does a muslim how
3:19:21 does a person come to know the truth of
3:19:23 islam that's one discussion right and
3:19:26 within that discussion is come to know
3:19:28 the belief that allah exists coming to
3:19:30 know the belief that the prophethood of
3:19:32 them of the prophet sallallahu alaihi
3:19:33 wasallam is true
3:19:35 so so that's one how do we come to know
3:19:38 uh islam is true the second discussion
3:19:41 is
3:19:42 all this
3:19:44 how do we reconcile certain elements
3:19:47 within
3:19:48 uh islamic beliefs
3:19:51 that may according to certain
3:19:53 philosophical schools
3:19:55 seem to be contradictory or claim to be
3:19:58 a logical contradiction or a
3:20:00 metaphysical contradiction yeah
3:20:02 so there's there's two issues people
3:20:04 conflate the two
3:20:06 because
3:20:08 the speculative theology
3:20:11 uh
3:20:12 a lot a lot of the the criticisms and
3:20:15 the debates
3:20:16 particularly amongst the scholars was on
3:20:19 the second part
3:20:20 so certain scholars would say that
3:20:23 uh a particular propositional belief
3:20:26 within islam
3:20:27 requires a reconciliation in a
3:20:29 particular way yeah and other scholars
3:20:32 would say no that particular
3:20:34 propositional belief in islam would
3:20:36 require another type of reconciliation
3:20:39 or doesn't even need a reconciliation
3:20:41 yeah right so those debates
3:20:44 an example of this would be like how
3:20:46 would we understand the na uh the the
3:20:48 speech of allah yeah as an attribute of
3:20:51 allah and how does that relate to the
3:20:53 quran so different
3:20:55 scholars had different uh
3:20:57 theological positions of how to
3:21:00 understand in a way that reconciles with
3:21:03 the uh inimitable nature of allah yeah
3:21:07 or the fact that allah is you know
3:21:09 independent unlimited etc yeah so they
3:21:12 would try to explain this yeah
3:21:14 and so there was debates that would be
3:21:15 also that because sometimes some of
3:21:17 those positions were under determined or
3:21:20 sometimes some of the people criticizing
3:21:22 it had certain metaphysical principles
3:21:25 and commitments
3:21:26 that wasn't explicit in their attacks
3:21:29 against some of these positions
3:21:32 now what people what scholars
3:21:35 so so that's first that's
3:21:37 the second issue the first issue how do
3:21:39 we know islam is true well there's got
3:21:41 to be some sort of intellectual process
3:21:44 yeah there has to be something
3:21:46 unless we're just simply saying you're
3:21:47 just born into it yeah or there's
3:21:50 nothing or it's just emotions
3:21:52 yeah even if you say emotions on its own
3:21:55 you still have to have an intellectual
3:21:57 process to say why we should trust our
3:21:59 emotions
3:22:00 yeah so there has to be some sort of
3:22:02 intellectual process
3:22:04 yeah approach towards this
3:22:06 now how far does that intellectual
3:22:08 process go yeah that's a that may be a
3:22:10 debate some people say it goes to
3:22:14 understanding the fact that the prophet
3:22:16 sallallahu alaihi wasallam is a true
3:22:17 prophet and the quran is the word of
3:22:19 allah but again it requires a rational
3:22:22 process toward in order to understand
3:22:24 that other people say no no we can come
3:22:26 to other conclusions as well prior to
3:22:28 revelation like the existence of allah
3:22:31 yeah other scholars said we can come to
3:22:33 even other conclusions prior to
3:22:35 revelation like do we know what's good
3:22:37 and bad
3:22:38 yeah
3:22:39 and so they made these types of uh
3:22:42 you know positions where we can engage
3:22:44 in these things so the issue is is that
3:22:46 you have to have an intellectual pro
3:22:48 ultimately you have to have an
3:22:49 intellectual process when it comes to
3:22:51 knowing that islam is true now the quran
3:22:54 as our guide tells us in numerous verses
3:22:57 of quran reflect upon the creation of
3:23:01 the heavens and the earth
3:23:02 think about these things or the
3:23:04 alternations of night and day that these
3:23:06 are signs for people who think
3:23:08 yeah so what is it that allah is
3:23:10 directing us to is to reflect upon the
3:23:14 things around us the universe
3:23:16 and in other verses it says reflect upon
3:23:18 your own selves as well as the creation
3:23:20 as well as the heavens and the earth and
3:23:22 you'll come to signs for the existence
3:23:23 of allah or signs and there are signs
3:23:26 for people who think so allah is telling
3:23:28 us the method
3:23:30 by which we come to the conclusion of
3:23:33 islam generally and part of that method
3:23:36 is to reflect upon creation with a
3:23:39 thinking process
3:23:41 yeah
3:23:42 now that's what people do is
3:23:45 they don't understand the philosophy of
3:23:48 quote-unquote the thinking process
3:23:50 certain scholars critiqued the second
3:23:52 part
3:23:53 yeah which was critiquing the
3:23:56 theological reconciliations of one group
3:23:58 over another group on certain aspects of
3:24:00 islam islamic beliefs yeah like the hand
3:24:03 of allah or the
3:24:05 speech of allah et cetera
3:24:07 and they talked about them as
3:24:09 philosophers or they may critique the
3:24:11 philosophers because of particular
3:24:14 doctrinal positions which clearly
3:24:15 contradicted islam yeah
3:24:18 but that didn't mean that they denied
3:24:21 the intellectual process and the
3:24:22 intellectual foundation of islam yeah
3:24:25 sorry to go on long answer but hopefully
3:24:27 that's clear
3:24:28 no i mean that was a great answer i
3:24:30 ignited him because i was i was recently
3:24:32 in pakistan and uh you know
3:24:34 i went to a few moderate motherships and
3:24:37 stuff and
3:24:38 like they didn't even let you talk i
3:24:40 mean this is oh this is all from you
3:24:41 know um all these greek stuff and why
3:24:44 you were talking about it
3:24:46 i was like
3:24:47 yeah
3:24:48 yeah
3:24:49 yeah i think what it is most people is
3:24:51 they're not used to if they don't know
3:24:53 the subject area
3:24:55 they assume it's useless
3:24:57 or they assume it's wrong yeah i think
3:24:59 it's like for example when jake had this
3:25:01 debate with uh who's that christian guy
3:25:04 the famous debater who
3:25:06 james white and james why yeah
3:25:08 yeah i watched it so when when jake is
3:25:11 asking him questions about
3:25:13 identity and there is a predication of
3:25:16 identity the guy he doesn't understand
3:25:19 he doesn't understand the subject area
3:25:21 because he doesn't understand he
3:25:22 dismisses it and i see a lot of that
3:25:24 occurred he said it was irrelevant
3:25:26 yeah
3:25:27 aaron raw just like apos yeah i just
3:25:30 found that they don't understand yeah if
3:25:31 they don't understand the argument they
3:25:33 don't understand you know
3:25:34 this you know intellectual tradition
3:25:37 then as a result they just dismiss it
3:25:39 and it's the same thing you know in
3:25:40 other areas you know if people don't
3:25:42 understand hadith they say oh it's just
3:25:44 all fabricated because they don't
3:25:45 understand the tradition intellectual
3:25:47 basis for it so there's um there's a lot
3:25:50 of that that goes on um
3:25:52 and i think
3:25:53 uh
3:25:54 again i think abdul rahman said it very
3:25:56 nicely at the beginning of the stream
3:25:58 rather than saying oh it's we should
3:26:01 stay away from it they should say well
3:26:02 what is wrong what is the position
3:26:06 what are the metaphysical commitments
3:26:08 you're committing to that makes it you
3:26:10 know which are unsubstantiated and
3:26:12 therefore makes it flawed yeah
3:26:14 so you know they should do
3:26:16 more of an intellectual process in
3:26:18 critiquing it rather than saying
3:26:20 philosophy
3:26:24 yeah it doesn't make sense to me
3:26:26 well not only that i think uh evan tania
3:26:29 who they look up to his books are
3:26:31 actually filled with kalam
3:26:33 and he uses the contingency argument
3:26:37 yeah the irony is
3:26:40 himself use his intellect
3:26:42 like he didn't just yeah
3:26:44 so yeah he actually writes about the
3:26:46 contingency argument and which is
3:26:48 something we discuss here quite
3:26:50 frequently so it's a bit ironic
3:26:54 yeah that's funny
3:26:55 yeah i mean that was all good
3:26:57 all right
3:26:59 do you have any other points
3:27:01 we got somebody else jake that we have
3:27:02 to get on sorry
3:27:03 uh there was somebody else but it looks
3:27:06 like he just left so all right okay but
3:27:08 uh jenny i don't know if you have any
3:27:10 last points if you want to
3:27:12 yeah i mean i was just i mean i recently
3:27:15 started i mean i was into philosophy and
3:27:17 stuff for like since college and then
3:27:20 um
3:27:21 i saw i had i actually had a debate with
3:27:24 my father about this
3:27:26 and my father you know he had a strict
3:27:28 upbringing in pakistan so you know they
3:27:31 don't really you know
3:27:33 let you go off the rails so that's why i
3:27:35 was like
3:27:36 yeah one thing i would suggest is that
3:27:39 the thing with
3:27:40 you know and philosophy generally so
3:27:42 there are gonna be things which are
3:27:45 complicated which uh you know
3:27:47 potentially can confuse people because
3:27:50 you're going into areas which are yeah
3:27:52 you know um
3:27:54 you know you have to be very careful and
3:27:55 you have to have a certain strong
3:27:57 grounding within islam yeah and the
3:27:59 islamic tradition in order before to
3:28:01 really dive into these types of details
3:28:03 and discussions ultimately i think on
3:28:05 our stream primarily all we're trying to
3:28:07 do is prove that there is a necessary
3:28:09 being with a will that's it really
3:28:12 no
3:28:13 you know inshallah we'll do other
3:28:14 discussions as well more specifically
3:28:16 within this uh the
3:28:18 quran and the prophethood etc yeah but
3:28:21 when it comes when it comes for me when
3:28:23 i'm talking to an atheist
3:28:25 yeah ultimately all i want him to agree
3:28:27 is that there is a necessary
3:28:29 foundation to reality and that necessary
3:28:30 foundation had a will it chose to create
3:28:33 as soon as he can see that he's not an
3:28:34 atheist anymore everything else is you
3:28:37 know
3:28:38 it's you know it's interesting it may be
3:28:40 important
3:28:41 theologically from an islamic
3:28:43 perspective but
3:28:44 ultimately if he's left atheism on that
3:28:47 position and that's
3:28:49 that's the key thing yeah another thing
3:28:51 i think there is a distinction between
3:28:53 philosophy and
3:28:55 i mean um
3:28:57 the purpose of it was to
3:28:59 to defend islam using reasoning
3:29:02 and as to philosophy you just you know
3:29:04 explore and then you have no biases and
3:29:07 no when you just explore and whatever
3:29:09 you just find you just whatever the
3:29:11 conclusion is you just stick to that
3:29:14 well i what i would say is this is that
3:29:16 both of philosophy that's the reality
3:29:18 the only reason why they categorized
3:29:20 keller multiculture different to the
3:29:22 philosophers was basically uh it was
3:29:25 more of a
3:29:26 it was more of a way of categorizing
3:29:28 them as names as nouns as opposed to
3:29:32 the particular um
3:29:35 you know methodology
3:29:36 obviously was a methodological approach
3:29:39 but uh
3:29:40 you know ultimately both are trying to
3:29:42 say that our position is rational the
3:29:45 philosophers like ibn cena
3:29:52 they're both trying to say we are
3:29:54 rational yeah we have the correct
3:29:57 philosophical rational arguments
3:29:59 yeah the difference was was that
3:30:02 obviously philosophers
3:30:04 uh were not interested in coming to a
3:30:06 conclusion that was in accordance to
3:30:08 islam or the quran and sunnah primarily
3:30:10 they weren't if it contradicted the
3:30:12 quran they'd say oh it's just metaphor
3:30:14 yeah
3:30:16 and they'd hold on to their positions as
3:30:17 a real position
3:30:18 whereas obviously the mutual moon was
3:30:20 were more interested in saying no we can
3:30:22 reconcile
3:30:23 those things which are questioned as
3:30:25 being incompatible
3:30:27 with reason and russian and demonstrate
3:30:29 that it is actually compatible with the
3:30:31 direct wording or the statements or the
3:30:34 readings within the quran and the sunnah
3:30:36 yeah
3:30:37 yeah
3:30:38 yeah i mean that's it these are all the
3:30:40 questions i had such as
3:31:02 so i joined kind of late but i just i'm
3:31:04 not gonna take too much of your time i
3:31:06 just had like one small question was
3:31:08 so
3:31:09 when after you you know established like
3:31:11 a first cause and then you established
3:31:13 right that it is god because of the will
3:31:15 uh i just had a question was like in
3:31:17 terms of change and time right so what
3:31:19 is the implication that comes afterwards
3:31:21 when because when god is not creating
3:31:23 and then he's creating right so there's
3:31:25 like internal change in him so does that
3:31:27 now imply that he's in time for example
3:31:29 because if time is like a measure of
3:31:30 change well what would be the
3:31:32 theological implications
3:31:34 and you know the second stage that makes
3:31:35 sense
3:31:37 of this argument you're saying this
3:31:39 particular argument
3:31:41 yeah yeah of cat of the cosmological
3:31:43 argument after you show that like that
3:31:46 there's the first cause is god
3:31:49 yeah
3:31:50 so um
3:31:52 this was an objection that the
3:31:54 philosophers brought to imam khazali for
3:31:57 example about well if the argument is
3:32:00 correct then
3:32:02 this necessitates that god changes
3:32:04 because
3:32:05 he's basically going from not creating
3:32:07 to creating
3:32:08 and uh imam khazali's answer to it was
3:32:12 to say that
3:32:15 god basically eternally willed
3:32:18 so the the action is eternal that he
3:32:21 eternally willed uh to create the
3:32:23 universe but the effect is temporal and
3:32:26 had a beginning in time
3:32:28 um
3:32:29 so i mean that's one perspective whether
3:32:33 or not that makes sense and uh you know
3:32:36 that that's going to be for the
3:32:37 individual to decide for themselves or
3:32:39 you can say um
3:32:41 as even tamiya seems to
3:32:44 hold the view that uh yeah god is in
3:32:47 time in the sense that he does
3:32:49 different things at different times he
3:32:51 acts
3:32:52 uh you know he he goes from not creating
3:32:54 to creating he for example hasn't send
3:32:58 people into hell yet and he will at a
3:33:00 particular time
3:33:01 um so there's succession in his actions
3:33:04 he's not changing in terms of his
3:33:06 attributes in the sense that
3:33:08 he's not going from being all powerful
3:33:10 to weak or vice versa or he's not
3:33:13 gaining any attributes that are
3:33:15 perfecting him or in any way it's just a
3:33:17 matter of whether or not you think that
3:33:19 god acts in time and succession or you
3:33:22 just see it as
3:33:24 uh an eternal action with temporal
3:33:26 effects as uh imam khazadi would say
3:33:30 so those are kind of the two options on
3:33:32 a table
3:33:34 i see i see um yeah i mean the only the
3:33:37 first i guess the first solution that
3:33:39 you said the only thing i guess i would
3:33:40 have was like uh sort of there's this
3:33:42 gap between the the cause and the effect
3:33:44 but uh yeah
3:33:46 uh
3:33:48 like
3:33:50 sorry sorry
3:33:52 yeah i'm just i'm just saying that that
3:33:54 was imam ghazali's response to the
3:33:56 problem because the philosophers uh said
3:33:59 look if the kalam argument is correct
3:34:01 that one of the implications of it is
3:34:03 that god is going to change and be in
3:34:05 time
3:34:06 and um he didn't want to accept that
3:34:08 because he had
3:34:11 a metaphysical position that god wasn't
3:34:13 in time or changing in any respect
3:34:16 and so that was his attempted solution
3:34:19 to the problem
3:34:20 so i mean whether or not you think
3:34:22 that's a good answer that's up to you
3:34:25 and then um the alternative perspective
3:34:28 is what i mentioned
3:34:30 from inventamia
3:34:34 okay i see oh just just to clarify so
3:34:36 like you know when we're arguing for the
3:34:37 first cause right so it's like it's an
3:34:39 eternal will
3:34:40 uh i mean eternally wills god eternally
3:34:42 will to create but
3:34:44 because the choice is there because if
3:34:46 it eternally grows then the effect is
3:34:47 also eternal right so you need a like a
3:34:50 will right for it to happen in
3:34:52 temporally like
3:34:53 and that the effect itself is not
3:34:54 eternal right i just wanted to clarify
3:34:58 oh you're talking about going back to
3:35:00 the original argument right yeah yeah
3:35:03 yeah the idea because it's like because
3:35:04 the issue is like
3:35:05 it's like a little hard to understand
3:35:07 right because like you know it's like
3:35:09 before time and
3:35:10 so yeah
3:35:12 uh the idea is basically if you have a
3:35:15 cause
3:35:16 which it has the necessary and
3:35:18 sufficient conditions
3:35:20 to produce a certain effect
3:35:22 then the question is why wouldn't the
3:35:24 effect
3:35:25 um
3:35:26 be either simultaneous or just
3:35:28 subsequent to the the cause
3:35:31 but we don't experience that because
3:35:34 the effect
3:35:36 is only uh whatever they're changing the
3:35:38 numbers to now 14
3:35:40 something a billion years ago 13.78
3:35:44 yeah okay 13.78 to keep changing and
3:35:47 updating it so
3:35:50 um the idea imam khazali's argument is
3:35:53 that typically like if you take for
3:35:55 example water uh under natural
3:35:58 conditions uh freezes at zero degrees
3:36:01 celsius and the idea is if you have
3:36:04 water at a state of
3:36:06 uh zero degrees celsius from eternity
3:36:10 past then what would you expect you
3:36:12 would expect that it was frozen it was
3:36:14 frozen over
3:36:15 uh there wouldn't be a time at which it
3:36:17 didn't exist and so the idea is
3:36:20 from a scientific perspective if the
3:36:23 the causal conditions that are necessary
3:36:26 and sufficient to produce the effect
3:36:29 existed from eternity past then you
3:36:31 would have the effect simultaneous with
3:36:34 the cause but we don't see that and so
3:36:37 imam khazali presents the idea that uh
3:36:41 the best explanation for that is the
3:36:42 idea of a will
3:36:44 that can
3:36:46 choose to bring about something uh
3:36:48 spontaneously so to speak
3:36:51 and so that that's kind of the argument
3:36:54 i seriously um
3:36:56 say the issue is this is in essence is
3:36:59 to ask the question
3:37:01 is a logical problem to say
3:37:04 that the creator goes from not creating
3:37:07 to creating
3:37:08 yeah so if you want to if you want to
3:37:10 term that being in time is or change
3:37:13 then is there a problem with that yeah
3:37:16 does that so for us obviously as muslims
3:37:19 we believe that
3:37:20 yeah
3:37:21 obviously the created was not just some
3:37:23 actualized
3:37:25 fully actualizing force that had no
3:37:27 ability to potentialize another
3:37:30 reality because we believe that allah
3:37:33 has a will and could have done otherwise
3:37:35 yeah so there's no problem for us
3:37:37 regardless of that
3:37:39 and similarly we have no problem
3:37:41 uh
3:37:42 in saying that because allah could have
3:37:44 done otherwise it doesn't detract from
3:37:47 the perfection of allah
3:37:49 yeah so
3:37:52 so what the philosophers argued is
3:37:54 obviously that
3:37:56 you know if allah died if the creator
3:37:59 could have done otherwise
3:38:01 uh or if god changes he goes from a
3:38:03 state of either perfection to
3:38:05 imperfection or imperfection to
3:38:06 perfection yeah so they always saw that
3:38:09 any form of change
3:38:11 is an indication
3:38:13 of either
3:38:14 going from one direction to imperfection
3:38:17 or from imperfection to perfection yeah
3:38:19 which they say well that's impossible
3:38:21 for god because he's perfect so they
3:38:23 couldn't see any
3:38:24 any idea that changed from one perfect
3:38:26 state to another perfect state was
3:38:28 possible
3:38:29 and the second thing is this is they
3:38:31 said any change would imply there has to
3:38:34 be an explanation behind that change of
3:38:37 not creating to creating
3:38:39 yeah and therefore
3:38:41 that would require an explanation
3:38:42 outside of the creator yeah
3:38:45 and so
3:38:47 those are the two
3:38:48 main arguments and both those arguments
3:38:51 fail because
3:38:53 like i said it's an assumption to say
3:38:55 that you can go from perfection to
3:38:57 imperfection or imperfections perfection
3:38:58 that any change implies that yeah and
3:39:01 the second one is
3:39:03 well
3:39:04 the explanation behind change
3:39:07 yeah is the fact that god has a will
3:39:09 yeah and that's what can be actualized
3:39:12 yeah
3:39:13 so you know those things which on are
3:39:16 always actualized go back to what jake
3:39:19 said which are basically materialistic
3:39:22 causes yeah or non-sentient causes
3:39:25 causes that don't have a will and that's
3:39:27 the whole point that imam ghazali was
3:39:28 explaining is that you actually have
3:39:30 further will by the fact that you have
3:39:33 an eternal cause but a temporal defects
3:39:38 i see i see uh did you guys already
3:39:40 touch because i joined later you guys
3:39:41 already touched on i'm not gonna ask
3:39:42 this but did you guys touch on like uh
3:39:44 you know because there's a will right so
3:39:46 it's sort of an indeterminate effect
3:39:47 right so you guys already touch on like
3:39:48 quant what if it's like a quantum field
3:39:50 which had an indeterminate effect you
3:39:52 guys already touched that
3:39:54 no that's that's related more to stage
3:39:56 two which i think oh okay something we
3:39:59 mentioned that we had an entire stream
3:40:01 on that um so i don't know whether
3:40:02 you're talking about clown cosmological
3:40:04 argument or
3:40:05 argument
3:40:06 yeah that's that's that's going to
3:40:07 depend on the stage too like what are
3:40:09 the
3:40:10 properties of the first cause what can
3:40:12 we infer about it
3:40:14 and uh
3:40:15 so it's going to be related to that one
3:40:17 whether it's just some indeterministic
3:40:19 mechanistic process
3:40:22 or whether it involves a will and stuff
3:40:24 like that we argue that it is most
3:40:26 plausible to assume that it involves the
3:40:28 will
3:40:29 yeah i watched that okay so one thing i
3:40:31 had one last question was with the will
3:40:32 right
3:40:33 was you know like a human will right so
3:40:35 because remember we're seeing like
3:40:36 everything that begins to exist has like
3:40:38 a cause right so like what about choices
3:40:40 themselves and will itself right uh that
3:40:42 begins to exist right so would that be
3:40:45 classified as like
3:40:46 uh when we say it begins to exist where
3:40:48 are we specifically talking about the
3:40:50 thing itself rather than its powers
3:40:52 right like it's yeah so it's not a
3:40:54 causal i mean even on a libertarian view
3:40:56 it's not
3:40:57 a causal the the question you can raise
3:41:00 is about explanation whether the the
3:41:02 explanation you provide for the choice
3:41:03 is contrastive
3:41:05 as in a contrastive explanation means
3:41:07 that what does it explain why it's not
3:41:10 otherwise
3:41:12 or not i mean so the contrastive
3:41:14 explanation should explain that a
3:41:15 non-contrastive explanation wouldn't but
3:41:17 then it's it's not a causal in the sense
3:41:19 that it doesn't have a cause
3:41:22 i see i see yeah so even like a wheel
3:41:24 like that so
3:41:26 uh so when for example we're taking
3:41:28 god's will right like his will to do
3:41:29 that has an explanation right that is
3:41:31 the reasons to create right just to be
3:41:33 of course yeah i mean so you can hash it
3:41:35 out in many ways of course but like you
3:41:37 could say that god has
3:41:39 you know non-necessitating reasons yeah
3:41:42 okay right so you have sufficient but
3:41:44 non-necessitating reasons to
3:41:47 let's say
3:41:48 drink a coke and sufficient and
3:41:50 non-necessitating reasons to eat
3:41:52 chocolate cake right
3:41:54 now
3:41:55 so for whichever one you choose you have
3:41:57 sufficient reasons to see you like coke
3:41:59 or you like chocolate cake right but
3:42:02 those reasons are non-necessitating in
3:42:03 the sense that they don't entail that
3:42:05 you choose one over the other
3:42:08 okay
3:42:09 yeah uh jazakallah guys that's that's
3:42:11 all i had uh
3:42:12 just clarifying thank you so much thanks
3:42:14 brother no problem
3:42:19 all right folks i guess that's it
3:42:22 yeah we've been going on for quite a
3:42:23 while yeah
3:42:25 oh god 3 hours 42 minutes
3:42:27 yeah i mean we were going on in the
3:42:29 beginning for quite a while i wanted to
3:42:31 say something before matthew got on came
3:42:33 on
3:42:34 to um
3:42:36 give like
3:42:37 my little summary of of the argument i
3:42:40 think that um because we're talking
3:42:42 about the strengths and weaknesses i
3:42:44 don't think it's the strongest argument
3:42:46 uh for god's existence but i do think
3:42:49 it's it's it's a viable option
3:42:51 it's a good argument in the sense that
3:42:54 you know one of the strengths of the
3:42:56 argument i think personally
3:42:58 is that it's very easy to grasp
3:43:01 uh for a common person like whatever
3:43:04 begins to exist as a cause that can be
3:43:06 explained very easily
3:43:09 the universe began to exist
3:43:12 therefore the universe has a cause and
3:43:14 it's something that is very intuitive
3:43:17 and
3:43:18 almost empirically based to a certain
3:43:20 degree and can be easily grasped and
3:43:23 understood but at the same time
3:43:26 um
3:43:28 one of
3:43:29 the potential weaknesses is you have to
3:43:31 go through a lot of
3:43:33 uh uh sort of
3:43:36 obstacles in explaining
3:43:39 why a
3:43:41 actual infinite either by successive
3:43:43 edition or however you're explaining it
3:43:45 is
3:43:46 impossible or problematic
3:43:49 that
3:43:50 is when it gets a little bit deeper in
3:43:52 the weeds and uh
3:43:54 may be difficult for some people to
3:43:56 follow along with and understand
3:43:58 um the contingency argument on the other
3:44:01 hand although it has a similar basis for
3:44:04 the first premise in terms of
3:44:06 you know explain explanation or
3:44:10 a psr
3:44:12 it doesn't rely on having to go through
3:44:15 uh the
3:44:17 obstacles of explaining why an actual
3:44:20 infinite is problematic
3:44:22 and so
3:44:24 you know the uh the other cosmological
3:44:27 argument which would be contingency
3:44:28 because they're broadly in the same
3:44:30 category
3:44:32 i think the strength of that is at first
3:44:34 i mean i think it's a more powerful
3:44:36 argument
3:44:37 um in general and you don't have to
3:44:40 worry about the this whole infinity
3:44:42 business but on the other side
3:44:45 i think it's more difficult for
3:44:48 the average person to grasp it's a bit
3:44:51 more philosophical
3:44:53 at least in the way that i conceive i
3:44:55 feel as though
3:44:56 i don't know why it's just intuitive
3:44:58 that the the kalam is easier for people
3:45:01 to understand
3:45:02 uh in its basic premises
3:45:05 but um yeah that's my sort of i agree i
3:45:08 think i agree in the sense that
3:45:11 you see i agree that before you get into
3:45:12 the objections
3:45:14 yeah like like just look at the like the
3:45:16 very form of the argument it looks like
3:45:17 the column is just more just accessible
3:45:20 it's intuitive isn't it all the premises
3:45:23 are intuitive but even yeah
3:45:28 no i was just saying that i think the
3:45:29 issue is when you get to the objections
3:45:31 in the column
3:45:32 and the contingency argument that's
3:45:34 where i think there's more work in the
3:45:35 column cosmological argument because it
3:45:37 involves
3:45:38 a lot of science so it's like a bit like
3:45:40 it's more interdisciplinary than
3:45:42 the contingency argument which just
3:45:44 sticks
3:45:45 to you know
3:45:46 basically everything in the contingency
3:45:48 argument is mainly about uh
3:45:50 psr and explanation
3:45:52 um so i mean but i mean in that sense i
3:45:55 mean if we're going to go there
3:45:56 the the the objections there can be
3:45:58 quite sophisticated too
3:46:00 but uh but but i would agree that it
3:46:01 like just the the very form of the
3:46:03 argument it just looks like uh the
3:46:05 column cosmological argument is just
3:46:06 more intuitively accessible
3:46:09 yeah by the way just very quickly uh
3:46:12 this person keeps asking if metaphysics
3:46:15 uh in the chat there's somebody with the
3:46:17 name metaphysics uh no that is not me i
3:46:21 am not i have not been typing in the
3:46:23 chat uh any messages that i have typed
3:46:26 in the chat through this entire time
3:46:28 would have come uh through the thought
3:46:30 adventure podcast um
3:46:32 uh account and logo so no uh metaphysics
3:46:36 is is not me uh
3:46:39 let's be clear because i think maybe um
3:46:43 there's some some issues going on in the
3:46:45 chat
3:46:46 and certainly have nothing to do with it
3:46:48 so
3:46:50 but yeah
3:46:51 i i was going to say no no i think look
3:46:52 it's really important stream and i think
3:46:54 the reason why we spent time i think the
3:46:56 reason why we needed to spend time at
3:46:58 the beginning
3:46:59 is
3:47:00 a lot of duat uh use this argument yeah
3:47:04 the cosmological argument
3:47:07 and i think they've not really thought
3:47:09 about or have responses to
3:47:12 uh the contentions placed against it and
3:47:15 i think this is what we tried to do we
3:47:16 tried to say okay let's go for all the
3:47:18 questions that people generally ask
3:47:21 and uh you know critique it or criticize
3:47:25 the the kca and let's just
3:47:28 engage in those types of discussions
3:47:31 um so i think i thought it was really
3:47:33 useful and i think it is very useful and
3:47:35 i think it's sometimes it's more useful
3:47:36 to discuss it from from
3:47:38 without inviting people on asking us
3:47:40 questions or trying to challenge it
3:47:42 because it's clearer because we can we
3:47:45 can exp i'll be honest i think we can
3:47:46 explain the contentions clearer
3:47:49 to
3:47:50 uh the audience than those people like
3:47:53 for example when we had somebody saying
3:47:55 well you know
3:47:56 um
3:47:57 we've never experienced cause uh
3:48:00 you know we only know causality because
3:48:03 we see it so if i can yeah
3:48:06 yeah if i could be raised
3:48:09 the objections we raised before
3:48:12 before the the callers came on i mean uh
3:48:14 specifically matt i mean no disrespect
3:48:17 to him but the objections we made were
3:48:18 much more sophisticated and much
3:48:21 stronger like even like from an atheist
3:48:23 perspective i think generally um
3:48:25 anybody who's familiar with with the
3:48:27 material would agree that the objections
3:48:29 that that we put forward it's not
3:48:31 exhaustive of course but it's just
3:48:32 definitely more
3:48:34 uh uh more more forceful than than um
3:48:37 than what was what you just mentioned
3:48:39 basically no that's right and i think
3:48:40 this is this is the issue is that um
3:48:42 everybody wants to be jake apparently
3:48:44Laughter 3:48:47 it's like that was it spartacus so you
3:48:49 guys probably won't remember there's a
3:48:51 scene at the end where
3:48:53 uh spartacus is you know the the army's
3:48:56 taken
3:48:57 and then the general the roman jones
3:48:59 who's spartacus
3:49:01 and spartacus gets up goes i'm spot
3:49:03 cause and then everybody else
3:49:08 so what happened what happened there
3:49:11 yeah you were like
3:49:13 you just cut off
3:49:14 oh did that cut off sorry i don't know
3:49:17 you
3:49:17 you left the stream
3:49:19 and you came back
3:49:21 must be spot i guess they could be off
3:49:22 the stream
3:49:25 but no no
3:49:26 i think i think it's really important
3:49:28 and i think what i what i would suggest
3:49:30 is people who want to use this argument
3:49:32 cosmological argument
3:49:33 go back listen for the first two hours
3:49:36 really important discussion
3:49:38 because those are the main arguments
3:49:39 that you're going to face and the
3:49:40 primary argument i think that people are
3:49:42 going to say is at the scientific models
3:49:45 of physicist x and physicist y
3:49:48 is the issue
3:49:49 you know that's one and the other one is
3:49:51 ah but quantum mechanics proves there is
3:49:53 no causality on a quantum level yeah or
3:49:56 nothing really begins to exist i think
3:49:58 those are the main arguments there may
3:49:59 be a third one which is another one
3:50:01 which we didn't really touch upon which
3:50:02 was b theory of time we never really
3:50:04 touched upon that because people may
3:50:07 argue this uh assumes the a theory of
3:50:09 time is supposed to be theory time but
3:50:11 like i said i think it's really
3:50:12 important please check out if you've not
3:50:14 seen the first couple of hours because
3:50:15 we go through each of the questions
3:50:17 put it on double speed and it's over
3:50:19 quickly
3:50:22Laughter 3:50:30 7 billion in essence
3:50:33 yeah so um
3:50:35 so i
3:50:36 sharif are we updating uh
3:50:40 about what's what's what's updating the
3:50:43 the the the viewers about what we're
3:50:44 gonna be doing
3:50:47 yeah next
3:50:47 song don't we have uh what's his name
3:50:50 coming up we have agreed
3:50:52 rasmussen is in oh yes when's your week
3:50:55 i think
3:50:57 what is it
3:50:59 what's the date on rasmussen
3:51:18 so we got josh rasmussen next weekend
3:51:22 we have
3:51:23 that's not a dude is it really next week
3:51:25 though is it
3:51:27 i don't know abdul's gonna check it out
3:51:29 but go ahead yeah no i was going to say
3:51:31 it's not the debate in fact
3:51:34 he's a person that argues for the
3:51:35 existence of god although he's a
3:51:37 christian
3:51:38 and uses the contingency argument so i
3:51:40 think there's going to be
3:51:42 discussions around that and you know
3:51:43 he's a
3:51:45 phd is he a professor i don't know if
3:51:46 he's a professor but
3:51:48 you know um
3:51:50 he's a viewer
3:51:51 he's he's very well learned in this
3:51:53 topic actually yeah i think he is i
3:51:55 think yeah
3:51:56 so he's very well learned i think we've
3:51:58 got that i think we've also got abdul
3:52:00 rahman's course he's doing two courses
3:52:02 aren't you know
3:52:04 oh just one just starting starting with
3:52:07 one and then do the second one so the
3:52:09 one
3:52:10 in introduction to epistemology
3:52:13 that should be good
3:52:15 yeah so i think it's really important in
3:52:16 charla
3:52:17 uh yeah so that would be good man and
3:52:20 what else uh jake whoa
3:52:23 anything
3:52:24 any other plans we've got
3:52:27 i don't
3:52:28 not that i know
3:52:32 oh
3:52:33 that's the other thing i was going to
3:52:34 mention
3:52:35 so fareed from for read responses
3:52:37 recently produced a published book which
3:52:39 is currently in the publishers
3:52:41 and he will be coming on
3:52:43 uh to discuss his book whose book is
3:52:45 basically a
3:52:46 critique of those people who reject the
3:52:48 sunnah so he's agreed so as soon as his
3:52:51 book is finalized and is ready to be
3:52:54 purchased he'll be coming on and we'll
3:52:56 be discussing uh his book and some of
3:52:59 the arguments around his book so that'll
3:53:01 be like uh hadith rejecters part two
3:53:04 you're looking forward to that jake are
3:53:06 ya
3:53:10 i'm gonna be sick that day i i i i i'm
3:53:13 predicting that so i won't be around
3:53:15 uh so uh it's on rashfusan uh is going
3:53:19 to be on the 24th of february thursday
3:53:22 the 24th oh okay so we've got
3:53:25 some time yeah i thought it was like
3:53:27 just in a couple days
3:53:28 we've got two and a half weeks okay yeah
3:53:31 yeah that's good
3:53:33 um so that should be very interesting
3:53:35 one it's
3:53:37 it's going to be related to like um you
3:53:38 know
3:53:39 we're going to talk about causal closure
3:53:41 as it relates to like consciousness and
3:53:43 libertarian free will and that so it's
3:53:45 going to be a very very interesting
3:53:46 discussion you guys should definitely
3:53:47 look forward to that
3:53:49 professor josh rasmussen on the 24th of
3:53:52 february
3:53:54 um
3:53:55 yeah
3:53:56 that that that
3:53:58 that's one of the main things we can be
3:54:00 looking forward to and also
3:54:03 working on that course
3:54:05 that epistemology and
3:54:07 of course on epistemology i'll be
3:54:09 working on that
3:54:11 uh followed by one on consciousness and
3:54:13 hopefully much more
3:54:15 to come where
3:54:16 might we might try to get a hold of uh
3:54:19 um
3:54:21 of matt dillahunty
3:54:23 um
3:54:24 and then maybe oppy yeah we'll see
3:54:28 yeah
3:54:29 inshallah all right guys i guess that's
3:54:32 it um
3:54:33 thanks everybody for watching again if
3:54:36 you haven't already uh do like subscribe
3:54:39 and share to the channel and uh consider
3:54:41 supporting us through either patreon or
3:54:44 our youtube uh we appreciate you guys
3:54:47 especially for watching and just give us
3:54:49 a thumbs up and uh subscribe if you
3:54:51 haven't already i mean what are you guys
3:54:52 doing but um thanks for getting us over
3:54:55 10k although we already we already did
3:54:57 do a stream on that which we um we
3:55:00 appreciate that so we're trying to get
3:55:02 to 20k at least in the next year we
3:55:05 should at least double
3:55:06 the uh keep the growth consistent
3:55:08 inshallah but anyway guys uh we'll see
3:55:11 you guys next time inshallah until then
3:55:14 assalamu alaikum warahmatullahi