Muslim Gets Grilled by Atheist (2021-07-16) #

0:00:08 thing in natural pantheism
0:00:10 so but the difference is
0:00:13 reality in nature is concrete we can all
0:00:17 point to it
0:00:17 measure it and observe it whereas god is
0:00:20 imaginary
0:00:21 so that's the difference yeah how why
0:00:24 are you saying god is imaginary and
0:00:26 reality is concrete what do you mean by
0:00:27 reality
0:00:29 because look there there's a million
0:00:31 different gods throughout history
0:00:34 um everybody
0:00:37 it's a concept it's imaginary it's a
0:00:39 category of imagination
0:00:41 no you're saying it's an imagination and
0:00:43 i assume what you're saying by
0:00:44 imagination you said it's not real
0:00:47 so how are you determining it no no no
0:00:50 no no
0:00:51 we're talking about epistemology not
0:00:53 ontology
0:00:54 epistemically it's imaginary until you
0:00:57 can start
0:00:58 pointing to it as a concrete existence
0:01:00 like a tree or a building
0:01:02 or something like that is concrete no
0:01:04 but what you're doing is you're saying
0:01:06 something is concrete and therefore
0:01:08 giving a particular type of ontology
0:01:10 and separating that from an imagination
0:01:13 by saying that because you experience it
0:01:16 concrete is the starting point no no the
0:01:19 starting point is your experience that's
0:01:20 what you're saying to me
0:01:22 right i take that back so i experienced
0:01:26 that's the first that's the first level
0:01:28 of my epistemology is that
0:01:30 i'm experiencing ex in existence right
0:01:34 the argued to the contrary would be a
0:01:36 third
0:01:37 so that's where i start so that gives me
0:01:39 the justification to infer
0:01:41 so if i'm going to infer things i'm
0:01:43 going to infer what i can observe
0:01:46 and uh and within my experience that i
0:01:49 understand is true
0:01:50 that i understand i do experience now
0:01:52 this is justification
0:01:54 again this is an apology so i can infer
0:01:57 that i experience
0:01:58 cause and effect and i'm justified to do
0:02:01 that
0:02:01 wouldn't you agree no i don't think you
0:02:04 ever
0:02:05 i don't think there is justification how
0:02:07 do you argue for god if you can't infer
0:02:10 causality i don't think you can infer
0:02:14 cause that materialistic causation from
0:02:16 empiricism
0:02:17 i think what you do is you look at
0:02:19 correlation and
0:02:20 the mind then creates the idea of
0:02:23 causation between the two
0:02:25 so where are you though
0:02:28 what do you mean justified yeah if you
0:02:31 if you infer causation and you and you
0:02:36 do you subscribe obviously you you
0:02:39 believe in logic
0:02:40 you understand yeah yeah yeah yeah i
0:02:41 believe it's okay right
0:02:44 logic is based on cause and effect right
0:02:47 no no no i think it's
0:02:48 opposite i think logic and philosophy
0:02:52 comes before experience so we order our
0:02:56 experience based upon logic
0:02:58 so how do you demonstrate that uh so for
0:03:01 example
0:03:02 let's take uh if i put heat under water
0:03:06 and then i notice that the water boils
0:03:09 yeah
0:03:10 so what am i going to say about that
0:03:12 what can i conclude
0:03:14 if i put heat under water
0:03:19 yeah then you you see that the heat
0:03:21 caused the water to boil
0:03:22 okay so that caused that aspect of
0:03:26 causation
0:03:27 is that something that you experience or
0:03:30 is that something that you used as an
0:03:33 axiom by which you then interpret your
0:03:35 experience
0:03:36 i you presume causation
0:03:39 as a way to then interpret the
0:03:41 correlation
0:03:42 yeah it's called inference you infer
0:03:44 that was the causation
0:03:46 no inference here but is the inference
0:03:48 built upon the experience
0:03:51 or is the interference built upon an
0:03:53 axiom
0:03:54 of rational thinking that's overstating
0:03:56 me stop over talking me
0:04:01 yet in my view i think that we
0:04:04 learn about causation through experience
0:04:07 you know as a child
0:04:09 you know you eventually learn you don't
0:04:11 crawl over the couch and just fall off
0:04:13 the couch and you'll see
0:04:14 kids take their time to crawl them out
0:04:16 because they understand about
0:04:18 dropping to hurt themselves so they
0:04:21 learn
0:04:22 you know just like touching putting your
0:04:24 hand on a hot oven
0:04:26 you know sometimes kids do things and
0:04:29 they learn
0:04:30 i mean you the same thing with other
0:04:31 forms languages of logic like
0:04:33 mathematics we have mathematic classes
0:04:36 you know don't come out but what i'm
0:04:38 saying is
0:04:41 so have you come across david hume's
0:04:43 argument
0:04:44 on uh his skepticism towards causation
0:04:49 long time ago yeah okay
0:04:52 so and this is the same argument that
0:04:54 bertrand russell also adopts
0:04:56 um so basically what he was saying is
0:04:59 that as an individual
0:05:00 if your first experience of a particular
0:05:04 event let's say for example on a pool
0:05:07 table
0:05:08 you hit the white ball and the white
0:05:10 balls traveling towards the black ball
0:05:11 and that's your first experience
0:05:12 of the observation what can you
0:05:16 say about what's going to happen
0:05:19 as the white ball travels towards the
0:05:21 black ball
0:05:24 well again it's it's based on on
0:05:27 learning you
0:05:28 you know you learn about how cause and
0:05:30 effect works in different scenarios
0:05:32 no no you can't say anything isn't it
0:05:34 you can't
0:05:35 in that first experience you cannot say
0:05:38 anything right right
0:05:39 what will happen towards that that black
0:05:41 ball yeah
0:05:42 it could shatter it could bounce off
0:05:46 all of these different things here
0:05:48 straight through it was caused to do
0:05:51 yeah i agree that it's a that causation
0:05:54 is a presupposition
0:05:55 yeah it's an axiom and it's a logical
0:05:57 axiom that we use
0:05:59 in the same way we used uh locality you
0:06:02 know you were talking about
0:06:03 quantum uh locality before
0:06:06 yeah uh uh same thing we use as
0:06:10 uh locality so we say that a cause
0:06:13 so if we see two events that correlate
0:06:15 to each other
0:06:16 and one is prior to the other event then
0:06:19 we would say that the
0:06:21 the the event that was closely proximity
0:06:25 approximately uh related to the effects
0:06:29 yeah would be uh or the event that's
0:06:32 closely proximity prox simulated
0:06:35 yeah close to the the other event
0:06:39 would be its cause yeah yeah the
0:06:42 collapse
0:06:43 the collapse of a wave function would
0:06:45 cause the evolution of the wave function
0:06:47 right
0:06:49 well yeah i'm not talking about i'm
0:06:50 talking about a macro level on a quantum
0:06:52 level it's it's different
0:06:53 we're different yeah and causality is
0:06:57 totally different
0:06:58 yeah so if i throw a stone up window
0:07:02 and the window shutters then the
0:07:04 assumption would be
0:07:05 that the stone caused the shattering of
0:07:07 the window
0:07:11 can i jump in here because like i'm not
0:07:13 sure if that's the argument the guy's
0:07:15 talk about logic
0:07:16 reason irrationality it's like uh it's
0:07:17 an experience you don't presuppose is
0:07:19 that what you guys talk about
0:07:21 yes i'm saying no logic comes prior to
0:07:24 it comes before experience it's a way to
0:07:26 understand experience
0:07:28 that's why it's first philosophy yeah
0:07:31 it's a it's a first prize
0:07:33 thing so i would say in a way i
0:07:35 understand what you mean and i might
0:07:37 even agree with you because
0:07:38 just looking at it even in a different
0:07:41 way but i wouldn't want to bring that
0:07:42 whole topic up but
0:07:44 no i would say that i always say that
0:07:47 you have to experience something like
0:07:49 like i was telling justin yeah today
0:07:51 logic rationality reason for me i
0:07:52 experienced it so i said they
0:07:54 do it they exist i don't need to prove
0:07:56 anything to us
0:07:57 to a 100 certainty or absolute certainty
0:08:00 to know something
0:08:01 and so i use the i use the philosophy
0:08:04 what they call fallibilism but if i drop
0:08:06 a rock in the water the water is going
0:08:07 to rip okay
0:08:08 logically that's what's going to happen
0:08:09 if i drop two objects in
0:08:11 on top of a building logically this is
0:08:14 going to happen
0:08:14 okay so basically when you learn about
0:08:16 logic when you learn about logical
0:08:17 process or rational process
0:08:19 now i'm saying that okay now they exist
0:08:22 they're no longer presupposition the
0:08:24 experience are there i've experienced
0:08:26 that and it is still no no he's still a
0:08:29 preacher
0:08:31 they exist so and i don't need to to to
0:08:33 show
0:08:34 a hundred percent uh something to to
0:08:37 happen for me to believe in it
0:08:42 are you framing it within classic logic
0:08:44 or fuzzy logic or quantity
0:08:48 which logic are we you know you
0:08:51 presuppose depending on what how you
0:08:53 frame it
0:08:54 so for example let me give you an
0:08:55 example ron if i was to take the second
0:08:58 stone
0:08:59 and drop it in water what would i expect
0:09:03 for it to ripple okay so that is an
0:09:06 assumption now isn't it
0:09:08 because what you're assuming this is
0:09:10 what i'm saying
0:09:11 this is what i'm saying to you and i had
0:09:12 to touch with rachman and he never
0:09:14 understood it he kept repeating the same
0:09:16 thing i'm not assuming it anymore
0:09:18 i'm taking the first position of the
0:09:20 laws of cause and effect
0:09:22 are real even if i can't observe the
0:09:25 actual cause
0:09:26 i'm saying they're real i'm saying logic
0:09:28 rationality and reason exists
0:09:30 and i'm saying i believe it because i
0:09:31 experience it no no but this is the
0:09:33 point that david tune was explaining
0:09:35 david hume
0:09:36 the 18th century philosopher i'm just
0:09:39 saying in his explanation you can
0:09:40 disagree afterwards
0:09:44 so what he was saying is that the
0:09:46 assumption that you're making
0:09:48 is that future observations will follow
0:09:51 past experience
0:09:52 but there's nothing necessary in a
0:09:56 logical sense to connect
0:09:58 the cause to the effect on a
0:09:59 materialistic
0:10:01 uh basis there's nothing necessary to
0:10:04 say
0:10:04 that heat will cause water to boil
0:10:10 yes and i understand what humes is
0:10:12 saying i'm taking the position that it
0:10:13 will
0:10:14 and i take the position that if if like
0:10:17 just say that i boil water
0:10:18 at 100 degrees at some for some reason
0:10:20 the water doesn't boil
0:10:22 there will be an explanation for why the
0:10:23 water doesn't boil there might be salt
0:10:25 in it yeah they will be won't they
0:10:27 yeah there will be agreed there will be
0:10:29 an explanation but that's the point
0:10:32 we've just assumed that there's an
0:10:35 explanation
0:10:35 i'm not assuming i i don't like it when
0:10:38 you guys put words in my mind i'm not
0:10:39 assuming everything i'm telling you
0:10:40 there's going to be an explanation
0:10:42 that's what i'm saying i'm not saying
0:10:44 that no i think but that's the point
0:10:46 though when you say
0:10:47 there has to be an explanation i'm
0:10:49 saying there is going to be
0:10:52 yeah but when you say there is going to
0:10:55 be an explanation is that
0:10:56 prior to the experiment and observation
0:10:59 or is it posterior to it
0:11:01 okay the water did not grow at 100
0:11:03 degrees celsius
0:11:05 very easily right honestly the altitude
0:11:08 of boiling water
0:11:09 depends on the altitude it's like yeah
0:11:11 that's one of them yeah that's one of
0:11:12 the conditions yeah
0:11:14 okay i'm gonna tell you i'm gonna tell
0:11:15 you something to be very simple just say
0:11:17 i boil a pot of water
0:11:18 right in my house okay and it boils at
0:11:21 100 degrees celsius right
0:11:22 right and then somebody else gives me
0:11:24 another pot of water and it does it
0:11:25 boils at
0:11:26 95 degrees celsius or burns on 110. i'm
0:11:29 going to say
0:11:30 that when you when you do a test you're
0:11:33 going to find out the reason why you
0:11:35 didn't boil it there
0:11:36 there's going to be a reason that's
0:11:38 right
0:11:39 there is going to be a reason and that's
0:11:41 the point
0:11:42 that's what i'm saying is that you're
0:11:44 doing the experiment
0:11:45 because you know there must be a reason
0:11:48 as to why you have a different
0:11:49 observation
0:11:50 from the first observation that's that
0:11:53 that comes
0:11:54 prior to your experiment
0:11:57 and yeah because it's if things change i
0:11:59 don't know yes it is because i'm going
0:12:00 to explain why because i don't know what
0:12:02 the other person gave me
0:12:03 right because if i'm given water i'm
0:12:05 going to say this is going to boil at
0:12:06 100 degrees celsius
0:12:07 i don't know what the second one i don't
0:12:09 know why the other one didn't burn at a
0:12:11 100 degree celsius i'm saying there's a
0:12:13 reason they gave me
0:12:15 why should that be a reason hey why
0:12:18 should there be a reason
0:12:20 because it didn't boil at 100 degrees
0:12:21 celsius so what why
0:12:23 hey so what so what he didn't boil on
0:12:26 you
0:12:27 why does there still have to be a reason
0:12:29 because because i'm
0:12:30 i'm following the laws of cause and
0:12:32 effect looking right
0:12:34 don't assuming it no that's my oh my god
0:12:37 when you keep saying that this is why
0:12:38 sometimes i don't like talking to you
0:12:39 guys
0:12:40 i do not assume the laws of cause and
0:12:41 effect i'm telling you they're
0:12:43 it's going to happen i'm not assuming it
0:12:45 so stop saying how do you why are you
0:12:47 saying it's going to happen
0:12:48 because without in justice
0:12:52 you experienced one event and now you've
0:12:55 experienced a second event
0:12:57 and you're saying that there must be a
0:12:59 changing variable
0:13:00 to explain why the second event does not
0:13:02 resemble the first time
0:13:10 why do we have to accept that the second
0:13:13 event
0:13:13 if it's differed from the first event is
0:13:16 because of a change of variable
0:13:18 because i'm saying by my experience okay
0:13:21 which could be a fallacy i'm not saying
0:13:23 it's not a fallacy okay
0:13:25 i'm not saying it's not a fallacy i'm
0:13:26 not saying there's anything i take the
0:13:28 position
0:13:29 i experience logic rationality reasons
0:13:31 so they exist
0:13:32 so if you want to call it a fallacy i'm
0:13:34 all right with that because it doesn't
0:13:36 matter what position i take
0:13:37 if i take it i'm not going to say i
0:13:39 can't justify it
0:13:41 i'm taking the position that i'm taking
0:13:44 the position that
0:13:45 that's the way the world works and it's
0:13:47 going it's always going to work that way
0:13:49 yep that's do you not see when you say
0:13:52 that's
0:13:53 going to work that is what the
0:13:56 assumption
0:13:57 is i'm not assuming the presupposition
0:14:01 the presupposition of causation kirk
0:14:03 it's it's the idea of
0:14:04 reductionism that local events can be
0:14:07 all uh
0:14:08 specific observations can be generalized
0:14:11 to the whole system what is your
0:14:14 definition of assumption
0:14:15 if i assume something the assumption
0:14:18 is that you accept it prior to your
0:14:21 experience
0:14:22 you take it as axiomatic
0:14:26 okay because maybe we had the wrong
0:14:27 definition i'm saying that
0:14:30 like i'm saying when i drop a rock in
0:14:31 the water it's going to ripple i'm not
0:14:33 i'm not even denying that it would ever
0:14:35 not do it
0:14:37 based on previous experiences you have
0:14:39 seen
0:14:40 the rock ripple the water but to say
0:14:42 that it will in fact
0:14:44 happen in the future is axiomatic
0:14:47 no okay what i'm saying justin is that
0:14:49 okay i'm gonna use this
0:14:50 as an example okay if i if if i'm blind
0:14:53 okay
0:14:54 and somebody says if you take this
0:14:55 experiment you will have vision i'm
0:14:57 going to presuppose
0:14:58 after the experiment i'm going to have a
0:15:00 vision i'm going to assume my vision's
0:15:02 going to come back
0:15:03 but when i have the vision there's no
0:15:04 longer assumption
0:15:06 is no longer a presupposition my vision
0:15:08 is there i can see now
0:15:09 it's no longer a position that's my
0:15:10 vision
0:15:19 but there's a second assumption now the
0:15:21 second assumption
0:15:23 is that when i do a second event that
0:15:25 the second event will resemble the first
0:15:28 event
0:15:28 no i'm not making an assumption about
0:15:30 that i'm saying it's it it's there it's
0:15:32 going to happen i'm not assuming
0:15:34 ron if you if you got up tomorrow and
0:15:36 went out to
0:15:38 a lake and dropped a rock in the water
0:15:40 yeah
0:15:41 would the water in fact ripple yes
0:15:48 justin we gotta hop out for a second we
0:15:50 got some serious lag going on
0:15:53 justin did i misunderstand you say that
0:15:55 again no no no i
0:15:56 i was i was just asking you if tomorrow
0:15:59 if you went and got a rock and dropped
0:16:01 it in the lake
0:16:02 if right now you are saying that in fact
0:16:05 when it happens
0:16:18 sharif is saying is the presupposition
0:16:20 or the assumption that a future event
0:16:23 will act like a past event
0:16:24 yeah but this is my problem with priest
0:16:26 proposition a presupposition is
0:16:27 there's no justification you presuppose
0:16:29 the laws of logic and you're saying
0:16:31 okay i have an argument because that
0:16:32 pre-supports the laws of logic i'm using
0:16:34 an assumption i'm saying i'm assuming
0:16:36 something because i think i have it
0:16:37 because i'm not trying to justify
0:16:39 i'm saying that i had it that's going to
0:16:41 happen i'm not presupposing or assuming
0:16:43 it i'm saying
0:16:44 it's there i experience it and i don't
0:16:46 have to presuppose it anymore
0:16:47 you can't justify that future events
0:16:51 will follow pastors
0:16:55 what i'm saying is like he's keep going
0:16:57 on the same path and keep telling them
0:17:01 i i agree well
0:17:04 i i wish that i could find a way to
0:17:07 articulate this differently but i i
0:17:09 agree
0:17:10 i talked to two philosophers already
0:17:11 about this okay one was t jumping the
0:17:13 other one i can't remember his name
0:17:14 is not a philosopher no teacher let's be
0:17:17 honest
0:17:18 a youtube debater who's not
0:17:20 philosophically trained
0:17:24 uh the other one was as as ozzie or
0:17:27 whatever his name is
0:17:28 and they both said a presupposition is
0:17:30 something you
0:17:31 you assume tactically before
0:17:34 before you get to an argument right like
0:17:36 if you're like it's a precipitation of
0:17:38 god exists right the presupposed god
0:17:40 exists
0:17:40 but if you know god exists if you are
0:17:42 100 sure god exists
0:17:44 it's no longer a presupposition right no
0:17:47 longer
0:17:48 and i'm saying the same thing i'm not
0:17:50 assuming
0:17:51 logic rationality the reason i'm saying
0:17:53 that i have it it exists now i could be
0:17:56 wrong
0:17:56 and i'm not saying i'm right but i'm
0:17:58 saying i've experienced those things so
0:17:59 i
0:18:00 haven't there's no yeah
0:18:03 so what justification do you have that
0:18:05 you believe that logic
0:18:07 exists it's by i just told you because
0:18:09 of experiences
0:18:10 okay and what does the experiences tell
0:18:12 you about logic
0:18:14 does it tell you that future events will
0:18:16 have to follow
0:18:18 past experience does that is that what
0:18:19 logic tellers tells us
0:18:21 that's what experience tells us about
0:18:23 logic well i'm telling
0:18:24 i'm talking about logic is that when i
0:18:26 explain logic it's
0:18:28 i've experienced logic every space
0:18:29 rationalizing reason it's a process
0:18:31 and and and it's and it's pretty it's
0:18:34 it's very consistent where it always is
0:18:37 really the track record
0:18:38 yes it is it's consistent so i'm saying
0:18:40 this is going to happen i'm not assuming
0:18:42 it
0:18:43 because when you're saying about past
0:18:44 events you learn from past events okay
0:18:47 from past events
0:18:48 when i was young i probably threw a rock
0:18:49 in the water i'm going oh this ripple
0:18:51 yeah if i throw another one i'm going
0:18:53 like oh this ripple again because i went
0:18:54 by what it did in the past now i'm
0:18:56 saying i don't i know
0:18:58 i no longer need to throw rocks in the
0:18:59 in the lake because it's going to ripple
0:19:01 every time it's no longer presupposition
0:19:03 this is going to happen wait wait wait
0:19:05 but what if i went to go drop a rock in
0:19:07 the water and the fish actually came out
0:19:08 of the water and ate the rock like
0:19:11 before it even touched the water you're
0:19:14 just going to go up in the plane
0:19:15 you're like it didn't ripple
0:19:19 doesn't work yeah because you're right
0:19:21 because the logical explanation is that
0:19:23 something caused a rock not to hit the
0:19:24 water
0:19:25 that didn't ripple that's what i mean a
0:19:26 few questions the next time that you
0:19:29 drop a rock
0:19:30 into the water are you gonna expect a
0:19:32 fish to come up and eat it
0:19:34 no no right okay so there's a few things
0:19:37 here
0:19:38 maybe how you fish guys
0:19:48 i think i think maybe this might be an
0:19:49 impasse between the way we understand it
0:19:51 or where we're going to
0:19:52 be able to come together on this
0:19:53 particular point but generally
0:19:56 whether it's david hume bertrand russell
0:19:58 or carl popper or
0:19:59 any other philosophers they talk about
0:20:01 this problem of one induction
0:20:04 and two assumptions uh that science
0:20:07 are predicated upon in order for science
0:20:10 itself to operate
0:20:12 one of those is this idea of you know
0:20:15 uh specific events can be generalized to
0:20:19 uh general conclusions for example i
0:20:22 might boil a thousand
0:20:23 water at one atmosphere and find that
0:20:26 one thousand beakers of water boils at
0:20:30 100 degrees celsius
0:20:31 i'm now going to say all water boils at
0:20:34 100 degrees celsius at room
0:20:36 at room conditions at one atmosphere
0:20:39 yeah so i'm going to say that
0:20:41 that's my generalization that
0:20:43 generalization is built upon an
0:20:45 inductive process
0:20:46 the assumption here would be that
0:20:50 specific events can be generalized
0:20:54 to cover all realities that's an
0:20:57 assumption the second assumption would
0:20:59 be
0:20:59 is is that the thing that's causing the
0:21:02 fire
0:21:02 the boiling is the heat so what's
0:21:06 causing the effect
0:21:07 is the heat because there's nothing
0:21:10 in in logic you've got three things
0:21:12 you've got logically necessary things
0:21:15 you've got logically
0:21:16 possible things and you've got logically
0:21:17 impossible things
0:21:19 things that we experience like for
0:21:22 example what temperature water balls are
0:21:24 is not something you can work out by the
0:21:26 definition of water
0:21:27 so it's not a logically necessary thing
0:21:30 it's rather something you have to
0:21:31 experience hence it's a logical possible
0:21:34 thing
0:21:34 if it's logically possible then it means
0:21:37 it's not deterministic that it will
0:21:39 always have to boil 100 degrees celsius
0:21:43 there's nothing in the nature of water
0:21:45 that tells us this
0:21:47 yeah it's just because the universe
0:21:49 operates according to a system we assume
0:21:52 will hold and fix throughout the whole
0:21:55 of the universe and that's the
0:21:56 assumptions that we build upon these
0:21:58 arguments
0:21:59 but that's why i'm saying that when it
0:22:02 comes to experience
0:22:03 we have a certain philosophical
0:22:05 axiomatic
0:22:07 views about how the world operates it
0:22:09 allows us to then
0:22:13 auxiliary what they call them auxiliary
0:22:16 assumptions
0:22:18 uh i'm not sure it's called auxiliary
0:22:20 assumptions but the axiomatic in the
0:22:22 scientific method
0:22:24 well for example like um
0:22:27 a long time ago uh when the planet
0:22:30 uranus was discovered
0:22:33 you know astronomers attempted to
0:22:34 predict its orbit
0:22:36 yeah and then based on those predictions
0:22:38 on newton's laws and
0:22:40 those auxiliary assumptions about the
0:22:42 mass of the sun and masses orbits and
0:22:44 velocities
0:22:45 of other planets one of those
0:22:47 assumptions was that no
0:22:49 other planetary bodies existed in the
0:22:51 vicinity of uranus
0:22:52 so when they made their observations
0:22:55 back then they found that the orbit they
0:22:57 had predicted for the planet was
0:22:58 incorrect
0:23:00 and so they didn't know what to do with
0:23:02 that
0:23:03 so there was some sort of error in their
0:23:06 auxiliary assumptions that they didn't
0:23:07 account for
0:23:08 yeah there were certain variables you
0:23:10 know logic ended up
0:23:12 um you know working for them right
0:23:16 so so i'll give you another example
0:23:17 similar to the one that you've given
0:23:19 which maybe hopefully explains it a bit
0:23:20 better
0:23:21 is you know stars in galaxies orbit
0:23:24 around the central mass a supermassive
0:23:26 black hole right the stars at the inner
0:23:30 part of the galaxy
0:23:31 they orbit a similar speed to the stars
0:23:35 at the outer
0:23:36 edges of the galaxies is what they found
0:23:38 now
0:23:39 uh according to the theory of gravity
0:23:42 that's impossible
0:23:43 because the stars that are on the outs
0:23:45 outer edge
0:23:46 of the galaxy should orbit slower
0:23:48 because if they don't orbit slow work
0:23:50 they're all betting at the same speed
0:23:52 they will break their orbit and leave uh
0:23:55 the gravitational pull
0:23:56 of uh the supermassive black hole
0:23:59 further out
0:24:01 yeah so what they said is they said they
0:24:03 had two options
0:24:04 one either we changed
0:24:08 our theory of gravity yeah and they said
0:24:11 no that holds true universally
0:24:13 that was again an assumption but because
0:24:15 it was very well verified through
0:24:17 experience so they want to keep that so
0:24:19 the second thing that they said
0:24:21 there must be a cause that is
0:24:24 causing gravity to allow for the theory
0:24:28 of gravity
0:24:28 as we know in the law of gravity as we
0:24:30 know it to remain true
0:24:32 yeah and so therefore they came up with
0:24:34 this idea of dark
0:24:36 matter right and neutrinos as an
0:24:39 explanation to say
0:24:41 that there's some gravity that's
0:24:42 exerting the force
0:24:44 throughout the universe dark matter
0:24:47 right allows these orbits to or
0:24:49 their stars to orbit at the same speed
0:24:51 on the outer edges of the galaxies
0:24:53 compared to the ones on the inner edge
0:24:55 right hillary assumption
0:24:57 because they haven't really observed
0:24:59 directly dark matter
0:25:01 but they just see this anomaly and so
0:25:03 they account for it by this
0:25:05 invisible matter or something like
0:25:08 matter
0:25:09 but you know they do have some sort of
0:25:11 predictions about neutrinos and i think
0:25:13 um
0:25:14 not long ago they detected um some
0:25:17 particles that
0:25:18 that um that were predicted if neutrinos
0:25:22 were true or maybe the neutrinos
0:25:23 themselves
0:25:24 i forgot but but yeah i mean the the
0:25:27 best way to
0:25:28 to at least i wouldn't say prove things
0:25:32 but at least to justify
0:25:34 and kind of build on our knowledge is
0:25:36 testable predictions
0:25:37 that's how yeah there's fine testing but
0:25:39 we can do testable predictions but the
0:25:40 only you know the reason why testable
0:25:42 predictions is important is because it
0:25:44 it removes any hidden variables that's
0:25:46 all it does it doesn't
0:25:47 change the data per se for example um
0:25:50 so in that example of the the stars
0:25:53 orbiting
0:25:54 what they did was they they already had
0:25:56 the assumption of causality that's the
0:25:58 point
0:25:59 there's an effect here which is a
0:26:01 rotation of stars around
0:26:03 uh the central mass and it was going at
0:26:05 a particular speed
0:26:06 so that's the effect another thing well
0:26:08 that effect cannot be explained
0:26:10 by our current knowledge of the galaxy
0:26:13 so there must be another cause
0:26:15 and that's why they inserted the idea of
0:26:17 dark dark
0:26:18 matter right so so that's so that's why
0:26:21 i'm saying that that's a presupposition
0:26:23 that's a
0:26:24 that's the first philosophy that we have
0:26:26 to have
0:26:27 in order to operate our observations
0:26:28 within yeah i agree that
0:26:30 we all we all um act on certain
0:26:33 presuppositions i don't have a problem
0:26:35 with that
0:26:36 i mean even um our current understanding
0:26:39 of how the universe works
0:26:40 it would work in the framework of
0:26:42 materialism it works in the framework of
0:26:45 idealism
0:26:46 it would work in the framework of
0:26:48 dualism
0:26:49 or theism it'll work you can make it
0:26:52 work
0:26:53 and everything will still add up the
0:26:55 same way maybe post hoc in a way
0:26:58 but you can kind of backward engineer
0:27:00 and say look
0:27:01 we don't know the mechanics of the dream
0:27:03 if you will if you're an idealist
0:27:05 and this is how it works within this
0:27:08 cosmic mind and so idealism
0:27:10 can be a justified assumption or a
0:27:13 presupposition about the world and
0:27:15 there's a there's some
0:27:16 scientists that do that actually
0:27:18 philosophers and scientists that think
0:27:20 that
0:27:21 the universe is a um kind of like a
0:27:24 cosmic mind maybe pan psychism or
0:27:26 idealism yeah but then there's some that
0:27:30 say
0:27:30 it's materialist materialism is the
0:27:32 metaphysical
0:27:34 primary thing i think every one of them
0:27:37 the universe may work as we observe it
0:27:39 but it also has a lot of problems
0:27:41 with all that and i think it's kind of
0:27:44 an open question so i'm kind of agnostic
0:27:47 on ontological claims like that so so
0:27:49 what we would say
0:27:51 is i or i would say is the problem with
0:27:54 materialism is that if we now assume
0:27:56 causality is being the operating law
0:27:58 within the universe and therefore that
0:27:59 every
0:28:00 contingent being yeah possible b
0:28:03 requires an explanation as to why it
0:28:05 exists in the way it does
0:28:06 then you're gonna get into a situation
0:28:09 of
0:28:10 having a potential infinite regress of
0:28:13 explanations
0:28:14 yeah and that infinite regress would
0:28:17 therefore be a logical impossibility
0:28:19 so you need a foundation that explains
0:28:22 the right of the universe what's the
0:28:25 argument for those claims
0:28:27 and and there's like two main claims
0:28:29 that you made that i want you to support
0:28:30 uh one is that materialism leads to
0:28:34 you know basically determinism
0:28:35 everything having a cause and two
0:28:37 that an infinite regress is impossible
0:28:39 of past events is impossible
0:28:41 uh good luck so i didn't catch that
0:28:44 because uh
0:28:45 my voice went a bit okay okay so
0:28:48 so you said an infinite regress is
0:28:49 impossible and that
0:28:51 and then materialism leads to an
0:28:52 infinite regress of causality
0:28:54 if we assume causality is
0:28:58 a uh necessary principle that comes
0:29:01 prior to
0:29:02 observation then yeah you're going to
0:29:03 fall into an infinite regress
0:29:05 yeah and you said and you said the
0:29:06 problem with that is that you know it
0:29:08 leads to uh logical impossibility what's
0:29:10 the art yeah
0:29:11 an infinite regress would be a logical
0:29:13 impossibility yeah
0:29:15 yeah but you're repeating the claim why
0:29:16 do you believe that claim sir
0:29:19 uh because number of arguments one of
0:29:22 the arguments is that you can't have an
0:29:24 infinite sum of finite things it results
0:29:26 in logical absurdities
0:29:29 that's that's begging the question
0:29:30 you're saying the same thing with
0:29:32 different words what's the argument
0:29:34 oh the well i'll give you a number of
0:29:35 different arguments one argument is that
0:29:38 in order for us to get to this moment in
0:29:40 time so therefore this causal chain
0:29:42 that agree exists in a chronological
0:29:44 order required as
0:29:46 required an infinite series in order to
0:29:48 get to this moment then you need to
0:29:50 traverse an endless series or you have
0:29:52 to have an endless series
0:29:54 to end to get to this moment yeah we're
0:29:57 worse the contradiction you said it's an
0:29:59 impossibility right
0:30:00 like you said it's a logical possibility
0:30:02 right so we're so contradicting
0:30:04 the word endless series would have to
0:30:07 end
0:30:09 and endless cannot end um how so
0:30:12 like if i say there's an infinite
0:30:13 regress of past events i'm admitting
0:30:16 that it's
0:30:16 endless right yeah but to get to this
0:30:19 moment in time
0:30:21 this conversation if you had an infinite
0:30:24 series of events that
0:30:25 traversed the past you'd have to
0:30:27 traverse
0:30:28 that endless series of events to get to
0:30:30 this moment
0:30:32 yeah of course that's that's entailed by
0:30:35 the idea but i'm asking for you to point
0:30:36 out the contradiction
0:30:38 no but do you not see that point an
0:30:40 endless series has to end
0:30:41 to get to this moment uh no um
0:30:45 no why well why wouldn't i no do you not
0:30:48 understand the point an endless
0:30:50 if it's endless it doesn't end does it
0:30:53 yeah yeah it goes uh from now until
0:30:55 you know forever in the past right yeah
0:30:58 but an
0:30:58 endless series would have to have ended
0:31:00 to get to this moment in time
0:31:04 i don't know why why you would say that
0:31:06 well the endless series kind of ends
0:31:08 again
0:31:08 therefore we'd never get to that oh okay
0:31:10 okay okay you're saying that it's like
0:31:12 endless in both directions
0:31:13 like you know this moment from this
0:31:17 moment to the past
0:31:19 is a is an infinite series so to get
0:31:22 from the past
0:31:23 to this moment you have to traverse an
0:31:25 endless series
0:31:26 to end that series to get to this moment
0:31:29 yeah okay
0:31:30 okay okay okay yeah thank you for
0:31:32 clarifying
0:31:33 the time if you ever heard of the
0:31:36 thompson's lamp paradox
0:31:38 it's similar to what to what he's
0:31:39 explaining
0:31:41 yeah but uh okay we can say that uh you
0:31:44 know from
0:31:44 the eternal past till now it's an
0:31:46 endless series but
0:31:48 i i don't i don't know what he would say
0:31:49 that the series would have to end
0:31:51 because to get to this moment you'd have
0:31:53 to you have to have
0:31:55 let's say you've got you would have to
0:31:57 traverse an infinite past
0:31:59 right it's endless exactly
0:32:02 to get to this moment so we're at the
0:32:04 very end of time let's say
0:32:07 yeah or the very moment this moment was
0:32:09 built upon a series of causes
0:32:11 those causes were infinite like for
0:32:13 example let's say you had an infinite
0:32:15 number of dominoes
0:32:16 for the last domino to fall over has to
0:32:19 be hit by the domino before it
0:32:21 and then that has to be hit by the
0:32:22 domino before that and that has to be
0:32:24 hit by the domino before that
0:32:26 if there's no beginning domino would any
0:32:28 of the dominoes fall over
0:32:34 yeah i'm not i'm not sure but but what's
0:32:36 a contradiction you haven't pointed
0:32:38 no so none of the dominoes would fall
0:32:40 over would they
0:32:44 none of them look you said you said that
0:32:46 an infinite regress is impossible i'm
0:32:48 asking you to justify that but if you
0:32:49 don't have an argument you can say
0:32:50 someone retract the claim that's his
0:32:52 justification that
0:32:53 like because there's no beginning but
0:32:57 there's no beginning i'm following now
0:32:59 you never know
0:33:01 yeah look what you said basically has
0:33:04 been like okay
0:33:05 if there's like an infinite regress of
0:33:06 past events that then would take like
0:33:08 literally forever to get from the
0:33:10 eternal past to now
0:33:11 and then yes it would be it would be an
0:33:14 infinite series well of course
0:33:17 but what that infinite series would have
0:33:20 to end wouldn't it
0:33:23 yeah that's what you're trying to argue
0:33:25 for but no no it would have to end to
0:33:27 get to this moment
0:33:28 by definition okay yeah so an endless
0:33:32 series something that does not end
0:33:34 has to end yeah it doesn't add because
0:33:37 it goes back
0:33:38 until forever ago but this moment i'm
0:33:40 talking about this very moment
0:33:42 you know uh was it 27th of of
0:33:45 uh the best way i'm in 27th at the
0:33:48 moment oh
0:33:49 you guys are probably still in 26 of
0:33:51 december
0:33:52 yeah it's the 26th for about another
0:33:54 hour for me
0:33:58 is if you set up a a set of dominoes
0:34:01 and right now the all the other dominoes
0:34:04 are knocked down except this very moment
0:34:05 right
0:34:06 now still standing but that last domino
0:34:08 is going to knock this current moment
0:34:10 down into the next moment
0:34:11 and then as as the moments go by that's
0:34:14 that
0:34:14 last domino that's still standing and if
0:34:18 you go
0:34:18 back 3 000 or if you go back to any
0:34:22 domino in the series you would still
0:34:25 have an
0:34:26 infinite amount of causes and effects
0:34:28 that proceeded
0:34:29 and is in front of that domino yeah
0:34:32 can i can i ask a question about this
0:34:34 because this is something i'd like to
0:34:35 know because
0:34:36 i've heard this argument a lot of times
0:34:37 and this is one of the biggest sticking
0:34:39 points
0:34:40 by scientists and a lot of people asking
0:34:42 now
0:34:43 you're assuming if the universe exists
0:34:45 that something outside this universe
0:34:47 caused this one to exist correct yeah
0:34:50 okay
0:34:50 so how do you know that the laws outside
0:34:54 the universe
0:34:55 are the same within this universe how
0:34:56 can you make any justification about
0:34:58 them
0:34:58 because you can i i agree you can make
0:35:00 that argument within our universe
0:35:02 because of the laws within this universe
0:35:04 i don't know how you can go outside this
0:35:06 universe and say
0:35:07 that this going to happen outside
0:35:09 because you have no idea what is outside
0:35:11 this universe the laws could be
0:35:12 different
0:35:12 it could be it could be in a state where
0:35:15 there would be
0:35:16 no logical contradiction about an
0:35:17 infinite regress how would you know
0:35:19 what's outside this universe
0:35:20 then it's magic then isn't it then you
0:35:22 might as well appeal to magic
0:35:23 no i'm not looking to imagine i'm asking
0:35:25 how you know no but that's what i'm
0:35:26 saying i'm saying if we believe in
0:35:28 materialism this is what i said i said
0:35:29 at the beginning
0:35:30 if we believe in materialism and we
0:35:33 are i'm just saying something outside
0:35:35 this universe could act in a different
0:35:37 law
0:35:38 in a different way yeah i'm just what
0:35:39 i'm saying i'm saying i'm agreeing with
0:35:40 you i'm saying that if we
0:35:42 say that outside the universe causality
0:35:45 does not exist the material things do
0:35:47 not
0:35:47 material things do not cause us the
0:35:49 material things
0:35:51 yeah then we would have to see then we
0:35:53 would basically say that this universe
0:35:55 came out of nothing
0:35:56 if you say well could there be outside
0:35:58 this
0:35:59 the other argument which you're saying
0:36:01 is that i'm not saying anything you're
0:36:03 saying that i'm just saying
0:36:04 i don't know what's outside this
0:36:05 universe i have no idea how the laws
0:36:07 operate outside this universe
0:36:09 i don't even know if time would exist
0:36:11 outside this universe
0:36:12 there's different models which
0:36:13 scientists are proposing and i'm not a
0:36:14 scientist i'm just saying
0:36:16 that we don't know anything outside this
0:36:18 universe and i'm not making any claims
0:36:20 about anything
0:36:21 i'm saying how are you making one when
0:36:23 you don't know the laws outside this
0:36:24 universe
0:36:25 so this is why i said at the beginning
0:36:26 because i said that
0:36:28 causality is a principle we assume prior
0:36:31 to experience
0:36:32 so it's not what i'm not i'm not
0:36:34 business within this universe
0:36:35 we know no no no no i'm not i'm saying
0:36:37 this is a this is what we call a
0:36:40 metaphysical
0:36:41 uh ontology it's a it's a reality that
0:36:44 exists independent of space-time
0:36:46 so it's not it's not conditioned by what
0:36:49 particular locality
0:36:50 you are in the universe causality is a
0:36:53 principle that's independent of
0:36:54 space-time
0:36:55 because it's a it's an axiom by which we
0:36:58 use to experience reality so it's not
0:37:01 something that i
0:37:01 sense reality like the water boiling
0:37:04 it's valid to say
0:37:05 well how do i know the water would boil
0:37:07 100 degrees celsius on the top of mount
0:37:09 everest well i don't know
0:37:11 yeah because i have to experience it so
0:37:13 it's a logical possibility for it to
0:37:15 boil at any
0:37:16 temperature but here what we're saying
0:37:19 is that
0:37:19 this is a necessary principle that comes
0:37:23 prior to experience
0:37:24 and so if this necessary principle is
0:37:27 logical
0:37:28 then it holds true independent of space
0:37:30 time so it's not dependent upon which
0:37:32 universe you're in
0:37:33 now i understand why you're not
0:37:34 accepting my argument of experience
0:37:37 but but do we do we all accept causality
0:37:40 though
0:37:40 or or do we have to argue on that one oh
0:37:42 no you don't you don't have to accept
0:37:44 causality we can accept magic
0:37:46 no i mean no no i accept causality it's
0:37:49 there anyone here
0:37:50 is there any is there anyone here who
0:37:52 does not accept causality
0:37:54 i presuppose causality yeah
0:37:57 yeah that's that that's fine that's fine
0:37:59 yeah it doesn't matter how
0:38:01 or your reasons for lekka for accepting
0:38:03 it you know it's
0:38:04 the question is do you accept it or not
0:38:07 yeah
0:38:07 yeah yeah okay okay so four contingent
0:38:10 beings yeah
0:38:13 okay so so causality shafe and uh
0:38:16 you're trying to argue for something
0:38:18 causing the universe from the outside
0:38:19 right
0:38:20 i think that would be a primary
0:38:22 necessary being to cause
0:38:23 cause the reality of contingent beings
0:38:30 i'm not saying there's nothing there's
0:38:32 nothing outside this universe
0:38:34 that has to cause i'm just saying i
0:38:36 can't i can't see how anybody can come
0:38:38 to any
0:38:39 any explanation of how this came about
0:38:41 when you have no idea what's outside the
0:38:43 universe or how it operates
0:38:44 yeah but this is the point is that
0:38:46 either we're saying that the universe
0:38:48 came about by no causes one
0:38:51 yeah two was saying it's like if you use
0:38:55 the
0:38:55 model of a simplistic model with sean
0:38:58 care right
0:38:58 where the only thing you have outside
0:39:00 the universe is radiation
0:39:01 and and uh __ what is it there i
0:39:04 forgot the video blank anyways he says
0:39:05 where time would not exist yeah now
0:39:09 he says he says if certain things could
0:39:11 happen
0:39:13 with the reaction that would cause this
0:39:15 universe to come about like there would
0:39:16 be no time where and then
0:39:18 in other models well you can't scale
0:39:20 time and there's no metric of time
0:39:22 yeah i'm asking if this
0:39:26 argument is so simplistic and what
0:39:28 you're saying how come
0:39:29 all the scientists not buying into this
0:39:30 i i'm not getting it well there are some
0:39:33 scientists that buy into this so it's
0:39:34 not like
0:39:35 there are no scientists that buy into it
0:39:37 yeah like a few of them
0:39:39 have to understand also this is not a
0:39:41 scientific discussion
0:39:42 remember that's why it's not a
0:39:44 scientific discussion but if you look if
0:39:46 you
0:39:46 if you're using the laws of cause and
0:39:47 effect in infinite regress
0:39:50 well that's that can be scientific no
0:39:53 because science can't prove it science
0:39:55 proves what's quantifiable isn't it
0:39:57 science looks at the quantifiability
0:40:00 you know uh before we debate on whether
0:40:02 or not this is a scientific discussion
0:40:03 can we have like shafe like
0:40:05 laid down the argument and see how it is
0:40:07 how it goes
0:40:09 yeah i'm on one percent battery so i'm
0:40:11 gonna have to go in a bit so it might oh
0:40:12 it might
0:40:13 cut out um but which one argument would
0:40:16 you want me to give
0:40:17 well i mean you were saying something
0:40:19 along the lines that uh
0:40:21 okay so there's causality and something
0:40:23 to do with materialism
0:40:25 like you're trying to argument okay
0:40:28 under a materialistic
0:40:29 uh outlook and under the uh the
0:40:33 axiom of causality then you'd have to
0:40:36 come to a conclusion that either
0:40:38 an infinite regress exists or that
0:40:40 there's a necessary foundation to
0:40:42 explain contingent realities
0:40:45 yeah and i'm saying that an infinite
0:40:46 regress cannot exist
0:40:48 because of thompson's lamp paradox is
0:40:52 one example
0:40:53 uh david hilbert's hotel and the paradox
0:40:56 of
0:40:57 an infinite set is another problem
0:41:00 and also the fact that an endless series
0:41:02 would have to end
0:41:03 but the fact that it's an endless series
0:41:06 we didn't
0:41:06 it would not end because it would have
0:41:08 to end to get to this moment in time
0:41:11 all of these things would therefore
0:41:12 discount the possibility
0:41:14 of an infinite regress so therefore we
0:41:16 come to the conclusion of a necessary
0:41:18 foundation for reality or a necessary
0:41:20 being and now that's based on definition
0:41:24 what's what's the definition i've used
0:41:26 there sorry no no so what i'm saying is
0:41:28 that you're saying that if these things
0:41:29 are endless
0:41:30 by definition they could not have a
0:41:32 beginning yes
0:41:33 this is outside of the realm of
0:41:35 scientific inquiry yeah yeah that's
0:41:36 right it's not it's
0:41:37 and science only looks at what's
0:41:39 quantifiable we can only quantify the
0:41:41 finite
0:41:44 yeah and when we look at the example of
0:41:47 uh
0:41:47 sean carroll or anybody like that like i
0:41:49 said they're looking at things from
0:41:51 their methodological approach of science
0:41:54 which is quantifiability but even
0:41:55 if they try to argue and say well
0:41:59 time you know photons don't experience
0:42:01 time therefore
0:42:03 if the all that exists prior to this
0:42:05 universe was photons
0:42:06 therefore there was no time then what we
0:42:09 would then say
0:42:10 is okay so if photons or if there was
0:42:13 this timeless
0:42:16 you know uh reality prior to the
0:42:19 universe
0:42:20 we would say well firstly what is time
0:42:22 we'd say time is the measurement of
0:42:23 change
0:42:24 so what does changes matter so therefore
0:42:27 we have to ask the question
0:42:28 what causes a timeless state which
0:42:32 remains eternal
0:42:33 to change to become temporal we're still
0:42:36 looking at causation we're still looking
0:42:37 for an explanation
0:42:39 is that even coherent though what's that
0:42:42 which
0:42:42 is talking about a timeless change
0:42:47 a timeless state changing into anything
0:42:50 so exactly yeah that's my point
0:42:51 if it's timeless yeah and it's prior to
0:42:55 the universe and we live in a temporal
0:42:57 state
0:42:58 then the time the state would remain
0:42:59 timeless
0:43:01 it would mean it would remain unchanged
0:43:04 be static
0:43:05 yes make sense that something would
0:43:07 begin to exist because that's a temporal
0:43:09 statement
0:43:10 which is what we live in we live in
0:43:11 centrality
0:43:14 so the point being is that even this
0:43:16 timeless state something have had to
0:43:17 have
0:43:18 initiated a change to it
0:43:21 that's why oh go ahead
0:43:29 nobody knows what the __ we're talking
0:43:31 about but that's supposed to be an
0:43:33 argument against materialism or am i
0:43:35 misrepresenting you
0:43:36 shea for shy foreign
0:43:41 like the sheriff um yeah so it's an
0:43:44 argument against that materialism is a
0:43:46 fundamental explanation to all that
0:43:47 exists
0:43:48 we can't just adhere to that okay okay
0:43:51 and you said that uh
0:43:53 yeah i mean i'll i'll grant you the
0:43:55 conclusion of the argument you laid out
0:43:56 that it's either an infinite regress of
0:43:59 uh
0:44:00 explanations or or a regress that
0:44:02 terminates an unnecessary
0:44:04 thing yeah but but okay but but yeah how
0:44:07 does that
0:44:08 um how does that do a way of materialism
0:44:12 to put it that way
0:44:13 so the necessary thing so when when i
0:44:15 define materialism i define it as
0:44:16 contingent things
0:44:18 contingent beings beings basically means
0:44:21 things that exist
0:44:22 oh well well i mean that that's on you
0:44:24 right the materialists would say that
0:44:26 you know they're they're physical
0:44:27 they're material but you know
0:44:31 yeah so they continue what we mean by
0:44:33 contingent we mean that they could have
0:44:35 been another way
0:44:36 they they yeah i understand yeah the
0:44:39 explanation of
0:44:40 why they have the attributes or the form
0:44:43 that they have is not self-explained
0:44:46 so therefore they need an explanation
0:44:47 outside of itself
0:44:49 yeah okay okay but um yeah you could
0:44:52 have like a
0:44:53 regress that terminates in a necessary
0:44:54 thing that could not
0:44:56 have not existed and that thing be
0:44:58 material
0:45:01 yeah so yeah so it has to be something
0:45:03 which is necessary
0:45:05 i i think which uh could only have been
0:45:08 that way
0:45:09 had to exist what about a platform and
0:45:12 i'm asking you how that rules out
0:45:14 materialism but
0:45:15 because that thing that had to exist
0:45:18 had to determine the existence of of
0:45:21 contingent
0:45:22 temporal reality if that necessary being
0:45:24 is eternal
0:45:26 and the effect is temporal then it means
0:45:29 that the necessary being did was not
0:45:32 for you you said that it had to
0:45:34 determine something what do you mean by
0:45:36 that
0:45:36 like like i said like a mental process
0:45:38 or yeah yeah mental process
0:45:40 yeah so it has to be a matter of okay
0:45:42 i'm sorry oh
0:45:44 okay so so you're saying there's there
0:45:45 has to be
0:45:47 a necessary thing that that's at the
0:45:50 start of the regress
0:45:52 and it's a mind as well okay okay you're
0:45:54 piling on clients upon claims
0:45:56 yeah do you wanna you wanna go try to
0:45:58 justify that yeah
0:46:00 so if this necessary being was eternal
0:46:03 if we agree upon that do we agree upon
0:46:05 that or we just agree upon for the sake
0:46:06 of the argument
0:46:07 yeah okay okay fine let's go for the
0:46:09 sake of the argument okay an eternal
0:46:10 necessary thing
0:46:11 go ahead and the effect is temporal
0:46:16 yeah now if if the cause if
0:46:19 everything's sufficient for the cause so
0:46:22 the effect
0:46:23 uh so everything sufficient for the
0:46:25 cause to cause its effect
0:46:27 exist and the cause is eternal
0:46:30 what would the effect be
0:46:34 set sail one more time so if everything
0:46:36 necessary
0:46:37 for the cause to exist causes the effect
0:46:42 and the cause is eternal what would be
0:46:45 the effect would it be temporal or would
0:46:47 it be eternal
0:46:48 oh you're gonna say it's eternal but no
0:46:51 i say it's temporal
0:46:52 the effect is temporal the universe
0:46:55 began to exist 13.78 billion years ago
0:46:58 right so
0:47:02 therefore the cause is not some this
0:47:04 eternal cause or this necessary being is
0:47:07 not some mechanical force that
0:47:09 necessarily had to create out of
0:47:12 compulsion of its nature
0:47:13 but rather chose the best explanation
0:47:16 here would be will
0:47:18 intentionality so so
0:47:21 something about this timeless thing
0:47:24 changed
0:47:24 and made it decide to you know create
0:47:27 all contingencies
0:47:28 no no no the timeless thing is
0:47:30 explaining from what ron was explaining
0:47:32 about sean carroll's position
0:47:34 sean carroll was explaining that prior
0:47:35 to this universe
0:47:37 that could have been a timeless state
0:47:39 yeah
0:47:40 university is it possible that all
0:47:44 possible um actualization happens
0:47:49 like that maybe some maybe maybe the
0:47:52 cosmos
0:47:52 didn't determine or or actually did
0:47:56 determine that all possibilities actuate
0:47:58 is it possible that it wasn't a decision
0:48:01 but that every possibility
0:48:04 actually no the reason why i'd say that
0:48:06 that's like uh
0:48:07 an argument that would be an argument
0:48:09 for multiverses or an infinite number of
0:48:11 universes in the cosmos
0:48:13 and the reason why i say that can't be
0:48:14 the case is
0:48:16 two two arguments but one of the main
0:48:18 arguments is the argument that an
0:48:20 infinite sum of finite things
0:48:22 is a logical impossibility and the
0:48:24 logical impossibility would
0:48:26 i given the i give the example of an
0:48:28 infinite number of marbles
0:48:30 if you had an infinite pile of marbles
0:48:32 and you cut the pile of baubles
0:48:34 in half how many marbles you have in
0:48:36 each half
0:48:38 exactly infinite every
0:48:41 yeah but i mean that doesn't that kind
0:48:43 of assume that all
0:48:44 infinites are the same right or should
0:48:46 be treated the same
0:48:48 all countable infinites are the same
0:48:50 yeah
0:48:55 just everything is an assumption what
0:48:56 happens within our world which i don't
0:48:58 think you can make
0:48:59 well you're the one that's making the
0:49:01 assumptions about throwing stones in
0:49:03 water
0:49:10 yeah it's all mine mine are all valid
0:49:11 assumptions as well
0:49:13 but you have to look i actually
0:49:16 want to go how in the possible world
0:49:19 would you know what's outside this
0:49:20 universe
0:49:21 and the best explanation that i ever
0:49:23 heard from a scientist
0:49:24 and they almost 100 agree on this is the
0:49:27 best that we can do and say the law
0:49:29 breaks down
0:49:30 at the origins of the universe the laws
0:49:32 of the physics laws when they break out
0:49:34 nobody can make a claim what's outside
0:49:36 the universe we have no idea what's out
0:49:38 there
0:49:38 so that's the best explanation i've ever
0:49:40 heard from any scientists
0:49:41 that worship politicians
0:49:45 i don't have any experience in cosmology
0:49:47 or not quantum mechanics
0:49:49 seem to come up with an answer which i
0:49:51 find pretty weird
0:49:53 sorry no no it's this is not like i said
0:49:55 this is not a fundamentally a scientific
0:49:57 discussion
0:49:58 science is only going to be able to tell
0:50:00 us what we experience what is
0:50:01 quantifiable
0:50:02 so yeah there might be variables that we
0:50:04 don't know about
0:50:06 but those variables are different to
0:50:08 talking about
0:50:09 logically necessary things yeah so
0:50:12 and that's first thing and the second
0:50:14 thing that i would say is
0:50:16 on what basis do we have the right to
0:50:18 deny causality outside of this universe
0:50:21 on what basis
0:50:22 apart from special pleading causality
0:50:25 doesn't exist outside
0:50:26 the universe i'm not saying the reason i
0:50:28 said i'm just saying they're not making
0:50:29 any any assumptions or any guesses
0:50:32 what's the south side
0:50:35 they're just saying we don't know so we
0:50:37 don't have we don't have an answer
0:50:39 but every experience that we have
0:50:41 follows a causal pattern
0:50:43 so on what basis do we have the right to
0:50:45 say
0:50:46 that a future observation whether in the
0:50:48 universe or outside the universe
0:50:50 suddenly no longer has to follow
0:50:52 causality
0:50:56 i mean that's like that's that's a good
0:50:57 point yeah he's using conductive
0:50:59 reasoning there
0:51:00 yeah so he said then it would be a
0:51:02 special pleading case to say well
0:51:04 causality at this moment just doesn't
0:51:06 exist well why oh
0:51:07 they're not saying that see here's the
0:51:11 thing right i
0:51:11 understand right that um you know your
0:51:13 argument is uh a priori
0:51:16 it's philosophical it's not scientific
0:51:18 yeah um yeah
0:51:19 you know that's not necessarily a bad
0:51:21 thing i don't hold it as scientism
0:51:23 but you know i take it that bow it's
0:51:26 more
0:51:27 has more of like a mindset of scientism
0:51:29 or am i wrong
0:51:30 and that's probably the disconnect
0:51:32 between you two yeah
0:51:36 but he's he's he's using logic and
0:51:38 reason and i'm saying that
0:51:40 how can you like in this on in this
0:51:42 world in our planet right now we're
0:51:44 using logic ration
0:51:45 and reason to figure out an unknown but
0:51:48 we
0:51:48 we rationalize the known to get to an
0:51:50 unknown right
0:51:51 but what we're doing here is that we're
0:51:53 going outside this universe and we're
0:51:56 trying to rationalize an unknown to get
0:51:58 to a known
0:51:58 which i don't think you can do how can
0:52:00 you how can you be logically
0:52:02 make an argument about something you
0:52:04 have no idea how it operates
0:52:06 what i mean he's going from the known to
0:52:09 you know i i guess the unknown you know
0:52:12 he's making an inference
0:52:13 of causality from this world and saying
0:52:16 yeah
0:52:19 says the laws breaks down at the origins
0:52:21 of the universe if they break down
0:52:23 what does that state like if if if
0:52:25 you're going to use the
0:52:26 the examples of the of our universe
0:52:29 then you have to say that you're not
0:52:31 using really a philosophical argument
0:52:34 no i'm saying there's two arguments ron
0:52:36 the first argument is to explain that
0:52:38 logic priest is is an axiom
0:52:41 for experience so we have to assume
0:52:44 logic
0:52:44 in order to make intelligible concepts
0:52:47 about the
0:52:48 about the world around us and that means
0:52:50 therefore that logic
0:52:52 is independent of space and time which
0:52:54 means it
0:52:55 is no longer contingent to a particular
0:52:57 universe it's not conditioned
0:52:59 by the locality that you're in yeah
0:53:04 that's the first argument the second
0:53:06 argument is the argument of induction
0:53:08 yeah which is to say that look that's
0:53:10 what we've all experienced
0:53:12 so we will we will therefore posit other
0:53:14 parts of the universe
0:53:16 following the same principles of
0:53:18 causality we don't posit that it doesn't
0:53:20 for example as an example of this
0:53:22 yeah we say the universe is flat yeah
0:53:25 space-time is flat so space time could
0:53:27 be
0:53:28 a curve it could be concaved or it could
0:53:30 be flat
0:53:31 one of the ways that they assume that oh
0:53:33 i established that
0:53:35 is they look at the microwave background
0:53:36 radiation and they take three points
0:53:39 and those three points form a triangle
0:53:41 and they look at the internal angles of
0:53:43 the triangle if the internal angles of
0:53:45 the triangle add up to 180 degrees it
0:53:47 means space time is flat
0:53:49 because uh the internal angles of a
0:53:51 triangle on a sphere
0:53:52 adds more than 180 degrees and on a
0:53:55 concave surface
0:53:56 it's less than 180 degrees so they're
0:53:59 using
0:53:59 metaphysical principles such as the
0:54:02 internal angles of a triangle
0:54:04 with the observations to look at the
0:54:06 logical entailment to say
0:54:08 therefore the universe is collapsed and
0:54:11 that's all i'm doing as well
0:54:13 you could say another part of the
0:54:14 universe isn't flat but that's not what
0:54:16 they say
0:54:17 well maybe what ron's talking about is
0:54:20 kind of like
0:54:21 a good example would be uh quantum logic
0:54:24 versus
0:54:25 um classical logic right yeah
0:54:28 like in the classical world you know we
0:54:30 use what um
0:54:32 a modular a modular lattice
0:54:35 you know quantum logic uses a weakly
0:54:38 modular lattice in it but they come to
0:54:40 totally different
0:54:41 mathematical representations right
0:54:44 yeah our logic is very complex and it
0:54:48 doesn't work
0:54:48 at all according to the intuition of
0:54:50 classical logic
0:54:52 so is it possible then
0:54:55 that outside of our universe there's
0:54:58 something similar to quantum logic going
0:55:00 on
0:55:00 something that's not intuitive to the
0:55:02 way that we
0:55:04 understand things maybe that's what ron
0:55:06 is referring to well i'm just saying
0:55:08 a little bit scott what i'm just saying
0:55:09 is that we have no idea
0:55:12 how anything operates outside this
0:55:14 universe and all we can do
0:55:15 is you know we can sit here and make
0:55:19 logical and rational and reasonable
0:55:22 assumptions by what's happening in this
0:55:24 world that's fine but i don't know
0:55:26 that i would change my my world view of
0:55:30 of what ifs right because we have no
0:55:32 idea we have no idea
0:55:34 what's outside that's why he's saying an
0:55:36 argument for god
0:55:37 on contingency in in the column
0:55:41 is basically saying that you're trying
0:55:44 to assume that
0:55:45 the way our universe operates this
0:55:46 operates outside this universe
0:55:48 and i don't know that you can make that
0:55:50 assumption so
0:55:51 so the first thing is i agree with you
0:55:54 that it is logical
0:55:55 reasonable and rational to come to that
0:55:56 conclusion of a necessary being
0:55:58 that's fine and you can say but there
0:56:00 could be a hidden variable
0:56:02 that we just don't know about and i'm
0:56:03 saying well that hidden variable
0:56:06 if it is a uh an observation
0:56:09 it's something that's now going to be
0:56:11 within the purview of causality because
0:56:13 that's how we
0:56:14 approach and think about the world when
0:56:16 you say being
0:56:17 a necessary being are you speaking of a
0:56:19 mind yeah yeah necessary
0:56:21 uh being by god
0:56:25 okay okay great great and that argument
0:56:27 is based upon
0:56:28 the fact that if you've got an eternal
0:56:31 cause you would have an eternal effect
0:56:33 but we don't see an eternal effect we
0:56:36 see an eternal cause
0:56:37 if we conclude that there's a necessary
0:56:39 being because of the impossibility of an
0:56:41 infinite regress
0:56:42 then you have an eternal cause but you
0:56:44 have a temporal effect
0:56:46 the only explanation or the best
0:56:47 explanation to explain
0:56:49 why you would have an uh temporal effect
0:56:52 from an eternal cause
0:56:53 is will that was intentionality but did
0:56:57 you see the problem with that though
0:56:59 like
0:57:00 well i mean there's several problems but
0:57:02 the main the main problem
0:57:03 give me the main curl well well i mean
0:57:06 you're trying to say
0:57:07 the the conclusion you're trying to
0:57:09 argue you're trying to say that it's a
0:57:10 necessary truth but then you
0:57:12 appeal to an inference of the best
0:57:13 explanation which will not give you a
0:57:15 necessary truth
0:57:16 yes no but it's fine i i don't think
0:57:18 there's a problem in just simply
0:57:20 saying what's the best explanation yeah
0:57:23 but then
0:57:23 but then but then you're not talking
0:57:25 about unnecessary truth you're talking
0:57:27 about the most
0:57:28 probable truth but even if even let's
0:57:31 say
0:57:31 i want to be uh what's the word uh
0:57:36 i want to be um moderate
0:57:40 it's the truth that is and it's
0:57:42 impossible for it to not be another way
0:57:44 right
0:57:44 so it has like a hundred percent
0:57:46 probability of being true
0:57:49 yeah yeah sharif i'll agree with you
0:57:52 that you have
0:57:53 a great explanation thank you of the
0:57:55 origins of our universe that makes sense
0:57:57 and i'll agree with that but i don't
0:57:59 base my beliefs on a great explanation i
0:58:01 believe
0:58:01 based by the belief of what i can i can
0:58:04 i can reason out and rationalize
0:58:06 and i can't ask well you got a great
0:58:09 explanation don't get me wrong
0:58:11 so i'm saying this so there's a few ways
0:58:13 to look at this uh
0:58:14 i can't remember who asked that rogue
0:58:17 was it rogue
0:58:18 i think yeah so rogue yeah so
0:58:21 there's a few ways to look at this first
0:58:22 lisa you know if i want to make a
0:58:24 moderate claim about the nature of god
0:58:26 and say that it's reasonable to ex
0:58:28 to accept this proposition that's a
0:58:30 reasonable belief then i can say yeah
0:58:31 it's reasonable to accept
0:58:33 except that the second thing is is that
0:58:36 there is a logical problem
0:58:38 in saying that an eternal cause exists
0:58:40 and that there's a temporal effect
0:58:42 because if this eternal cause is
0:58:45 uh the only necessary being and it's
0:58:48 independent
0:58:49 yeah i'll say as we would say uh if it
0:58:52 has a saity
0:58:53 then there's no external reasons to
0:58:55 cause it
0:58:56 to create so therefore the reasons have
0:58:59 to be internal to itself
0:59:01 and that is not spontaneous because
0:59:05 again like i said if you got everything
0:59:07 sufficient for the cause to cause the
0:59:09 effect
0:59:10 then the effect would necessarily if you
0:59:12 got if
0:59:13 what caused it to make that decision
0:59:16 at that point rather than earlier that
0:59:19 we that's that
0:59:20 i can't answer that question that's
0:59:21 something that goes beyond my uh
0:59:23 metaphysical commitment yeah so
0:59:25 excellent so you have
0:59:26 you have this eternal god god at this
0:59:30 point
0:59:30 decided to create yeah you know not
0:59:33 before not
0:59:34 not after yeah and it's eternal yeah
0:59:37 so you you know what explains that
0:59:39 change or
0:59:40 are you saying it's spontaneous no no
0:59:42 i'm not saying spontaneously
0:59:45 but but at the same time that the
0:59:46 natural the materialists could also
0:59:48 posit something similar
0:59:50 right how would they influence
0:59:53 infinitely
0:59:54 descending chains are possible according
0:59:56 to uh set theories
0:59:58 right infinite set theories don't talk
1:00:01 about
1:00:01 uh causal chains infinite set queries
1:00:04 talk about
1:00:05 countable and uncountable infinite sets
1:00:09 can i ask what you're all about spending
1:00:12 change
1:00:15 who are you there i never met you before
1:00:17 are you a friend of justice uh
1:00:18 anybody in this room wait are you
1:00:21 talking to me
1:00:22 yeah i just just introduced yourself are
1:00:24 you friends with justin or anybody you
1:00:26 know anybody in this group
1:00:28 oh i i know mr batman
1:00:32 i saw the link on a server i've talked
1:00:34 to kylo before
1:00:37 do you know anybody else in this group
1:00:40 uh batman
1:00:41 and kylo and i think that's it unless
1:00:43 you use different names on discord
1:00:45 uh well i just recently switched my name
1:00:48 on here because i'm not no i'm only kylo
1:00:50 on discord i explained this to these
1:00:52 guys before but
1:00:54 yeah kylo craig let me go ahead and turn
1:00:56 my camera off there you go
1:00:57 there it is welcome to the discussion
1:01:00 welcome to mr batman
1:01:02 yeah we have we have discussions on uh
1:01:06 you know uh justin's facebook messenger
1:01:08 come on then we can have
1:01:09 more of a chat yeah just going back on
1:01:12 to this point
1:01:13 the issue is this is that if you've got
1:01:16 if x causes y and if x exists therefore
1:01:19 y
1:01:19 exists if x is eternal then y would also
1:01:22 be eternal
1:01:23 if x exists and y does not exist or
1:01:26 exists at some times and there's no
1:01:28 other external factors to x then the
1:01:31 only explanation would be contained
1:01:33 within
1:01:33 x and that explanation would be will now
1:01:37 you say well what about where was the
1:01:38 change why did it change from willing to
1:01:40 not willing
1:01:41 one argument would be used which was an
1:01:43 argument from a muslim scholar from a
1:01:45 thousand years ago called imam brazali
1:01:47 he said that the necessary being
1:01:50 eternally willed at that moment
1:01:52 to create yeah so that was his
1:01:54 explanation
1:01:55 but i think the other other explanation
1:01:57 which goes back to what i think craig
1:01:59 was
1:01:59 scott sorry was asking before which is
1:02:02 that
1:02:02 when you've got a number of
1:02:04 possibilities so the it's a water could
1:02:06 boil at 100 degrees 90 degrees 110 120
1:02:09 whatever number
1:02:10 everything within the universe is
1:02:12 contingent it required a determinant
1:02:14 in order to determine why it has that
1:02:16 possibility as
1:02:17 to any other possibility yeah why does
1:02:20 planck's constant have that particular
1:02:22 value as opposed to anything
1:02:24 can i ask you a quick question uh
1:02:27 like you would agree that there's like
1:02:29 two options right either god's choice at
1:02:31 that time
1:02:32 uh was determined or not right
1:02:36 uh was determined on yeah yeah
1:02:39 and al ghazali's option would be that
1:02:42 it was determined you know because all
1:02:45 his options
1:02:46 say that it wasn't determined it was the
1:02:48 fact that god
1:02:49 chose he has pure free will
1:02:52 okay okay okay but the one where you
1:02:54 know it was
1:02:56 said to happen at that moment from yeah
1:02:58 so he chose
1:02:59 before so god chose to create at that
1:03:03 moment
1:03:05 yeah so it's like okay those are your
1:03:07 two choices
1:03:09 and and like the materialists would also
1:03:11 have those same two choices
1:03:14 but but you also said that like this has
1:03:17 to be explained by will
1:03:20 um you know what happened at this time
1:03:22 as opposed to another time
1:03:24 um yeah and i'm interested in reasons
1:03:27 for that
1:03:28 yeah so the reason is because if it's a
1:03:30 materialistic
1:03:31 cause which had no will then the
1:03:34 materialistic cause
1:03:35 has to cause it cannot not cause
1:03:39 yeah but but it could be spontaneous
1:03:41 like like in quantum mechanics right we
1:03:42 have uh impressed events
1:03:44 but then there needs a possible being
1:03:46 now and now it's something that could
1:03:48 have occurred could not have occurred
1:03:49 and therefore it would need an
1:03:50 explanation as to why it was spontaneous
1:03:52 unless we appeal to magic well i mean
1:03:55 that's the same problem that fears have
1:03:57 though
1:03:58 how does it feel from this cs doesn't
1:04:01 have that problem
1:04:02 no we obviously people make decisions
1:04:06 either
1:04:06 because of reasons or randomly how does
1:04:09 uh how do you get out of that dichotomy
1:04:12 so we
1:04:12 so this is the problem problem is that
1:04:15 this is where i'd agree with ron on this
1:04:17 point which is that there's only so far
1:04:18 that our
1:04:20 metaphysics can take us so we can't
1:04:22 explain what
1:04:23 the reason was for god and what did god
1:04:25 rationalize we wouldn't make that
1:04:28 i can't that's a physical commitment on
1:04:30 that did those reasons determine his
1:04:32 action
1:04:34 uh so i the question is what do you mean
1:04:37 by
1:04:38 a reasoning process in the nature of
1:04:40 this reason
1:04:41 like um his nature did his nature
1:04:45 determine
1:04:48 not his nature his ability to choose and
1:04:50 his ability to choose his part of his
1:04:52 nature call i better go
1:04:54 guys i shouldn't really sleep
1:05:01 nice talking to you i think thank you
1:05:04 for coming on
1:05:05 we're going to be setting up a date for
1:05:06 sharif to be debating against one of our
1:05:09 uh
1:05:10 ex-muslim friends uh josh boyd the our
1:05:13 uh the archaeologist
1:05:14 uh we'll be setting that up for
1:05:15 mid-january so get ready for that
1:05:18 uh and just
1:05:27 you