Open Q and A #2 - Bring Your Questions (non Muslims preferred) (2022-11-20)

Sharif discusses how he reached a level of certainty about Islam through reading the Quran and studying the life of the Prophet Muhammad. He also answers a question about how to guide a Layman when it comes to understanding the attributes of God. Imam Khazana discusses the difference between the at30 and the asheri schools of thought on when to divert and when not to divert from the apparent meaning of the Quran. also discusses the different views on metaphor in relation to the Quran.

*00:00:00 Discusses how Sharif is doing and what he plans to do next.

00:05:00 The narrator explains that reading the Quran, studying the life of the Prophet Muhammad, and listening to arguments from atheists helped him reach a level of certainty about Islam. He says that there are many things that contribute to this level of certainty, but the main thing was reading and studying the Quran.
00:10:00 A Muslim asks how they should guide a Layman when it comes to understanding the attributes of God, and Yusuf provides an example of how patience and sincerity can lead to understanding.
00:15:00 The three schools of Islamic theology disagree on how to interpret certain words and terms in the Quran pertaining to Allah's attributes. The asharis (plural of ash-ari, meaning "one who believes") interpret these terms to imply Allah is like a creature, while the humbly school (also known as the Atari school) interprets them metaphorically. The abentamia school (derived from the Arabic words ebentamia, meaning "authority," "power," or "might") holds that it is impossible to know what the Quran's literal meaning is, and that each reader must interpret it based on their own understanding and experience.
00:20:00 Imam Khazana discusses the difference between the at30 and the asheri schools of thought on when to divert and when not to divert from the apparent meaning of the Quran. He argues that it is better for Muslims to take the apparent meaning, as this is safer and more beneficial.
*00:25:00 Discusses the different views on metaphor in relation to the Quran. He points out that all Muslims agree upon the principle that a word's apparent meaning does not necessarily commit one to its metaphysical implications. He goes on to say that the main focus of the Quran is to develop a relationship with Allah, and that the Layman should avoid debates about metaphor. Those on the "apparent meaning" side of the debate may fall into error if they do not understand the terms being used, while those on the "metaphor" side may lay down their metaphysics in order to negate the apparent meaning.
*00:30:00 Discusses a variety of topics, including Islamic inheritance, contingency, and the principle of existence. They explain that these topics can be difficult to understand, but they are happy to help those who have questions.
00:35:00 Open Q and A host Mustafa discusses the contingency argument. He says that although the argument includes the idea that some things can potentially violate the principle of sufficient reason, the only thing known to violate it is free will. He says that there are good reasons to believe that free will has the ability to do non-necessitating explanations and that other minds exist. When applied to the Creator, this means that contingent objects that have no free will require an explanation.
*00:40:00 Discusses the issue of inheritance, and clarifies that in some cases, a person will inherit more than one item. points out that this is already accounted for in the fifth of inheritance, which is the principle that allows for redistribution of an individual's wealth during their lifetime.
*00:45:00 Discusses the difference between ontology and metaphysics, and goes on to say that ontology is a branch of metaphysics. He explains that a metaphysical commitment is either to believe that all reality is physical, or to believe that there is another realm beyond the physical. tries to explain what metaphysical discussion is about by giving an example of a question.
*00:50:00 Discusses the boundaries of ontology, which is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of existence. Some discussions within ontology may overlap with other branches of philosophy, such as logic and ethics, but the concepts themselves are still considered metaphysical. It can be difficult to categorize these discussions, but that is part of the process of learning about them.
*00:55:00 Discusses the principle of sufficient reason, which states that everything that exists has a reason for its existence. There are two versions of this principle: a strong version and a weaker version. The strong version requires that everything has an explanation, while the weaker version allows for the idea of free will. discusses how these versions of the principle commit one to certain metaphysical positions.

01:00:00 - 02:00:00

the speaker discusses the idea that Allah, as a perfect being, has certain attributes that are necessary for him to have, but which do not contradict his nature. He goes on to discuss how some of these attributes are necessary for perfection, even if humans don't have access to all of the necessary information.

01:00:00 talks about free will and how it is an explanation for why we choose one thing over another, but also points out that there is never a total explanation for why anything happens. They then go on to say that there are ways to contact the brothers, including via social media and private meetings.

01:05:00 Brother No Name from the video talks about the difference between appeal to mystery and appeal to a logical contradiction. He argues that when someone affirms something based on mystery, they may have good reasons. However, if the mystery is underdetermined, it does not lead to anything.
*01:10:00 Discusses how some things are unknown and cannot be explained, which is similar to an argument from ignorance. He goes on to say that the argument of ignorance is similar to an appeal to mystery, and that both are logical contradictions.
*01:15:00 Discusses the argument that because we cannot reduce the concept of God to anything else, God must be real. It cites examples of arguments for and against the existence of God, and explains that, in the end, the reality of God is something that cannot be negated.
*01:20:00 Discusses the paradox of God being all-powerful, but unable to create a rock so big that he couldn't lift it. He argues that this is because the concept of a rock being too big for God to lift is contradictory, and therefore not a thing in and of itself. When discussing Allah, the speaker points out that he is not limited in the same way, as he can create any rock size he desires.
*01:25:00 Discusses the Argument from Free Will, which is an argument that attempts to prove that God necessarily exists. notes that this argument is flawed because it collapses all the way through because it is necessary that creation exists--it is not contingent.
*01:30:00 Discusses a paper by Joe Schmidt d "Bringing Determinism and Indeterminacy Together: A Response to Pilots." Schmidt argues that the unintentional collapse of modal arguments leads to the conclusion that God does not exist because there is nothing within God that would explain the different creation between worlds. However, he points out that this argument fails because there is a get out cause--that is, there is nothing within God that would account for the difference in creation.
*01:35:00 Discusses a paper by Joe Nickell, in which he argues that free will is not random, but rather is determined by prior causes. Nickell's argument is that there are many accounts of free will, all of which imply that free will is determined, but not random.
01:40:00 In the second Open Q and A, one viewer asks whether determinism and randomness are the same, while another asks whether Muslims believe in necessary beings that cannot have any attribute that is contingent. promises to call the viewer this week to discuss the matter further.
01:45:00 the speaker discusses the idea that Allah, as a perfect being, has certain attributes that are necessary for him to have, but which do not contradict his nature.
01:50:00 The hosts of the video discuss the different attributes of God and how some are necessary for perfection, even if humans don't have access to all of the necessary information. One guest asks about channels for the hosts, and Sharif responds that it is too difficult to maintain a personal channel.
01:55:00 In response to a question about whether human beings have decreased in size and lifespan, Hamza explains that there are different interpretations of a Hadith about Adam being 60 cubits tall. He also mentions that when humans return to glory, they will return to their natural size.

02:00:00 - 03:00:00

a philosopher discusses the concept of a necessary being and how it relates to the ability for something to have power. He says that, in order to have a necessary being, something must be independent, which means that it has no dependencies and no causes outside of itself. He goes on to say that, because a necessary being has this ability, it must also be powerful, which is why it is associated with the concept of power.

*02:00:00 Discusses the options open to atheists, with the most popular being an infinite regress or a random event in the beginning. Both of these positions are seen as irrational by the author, as they cannot be based on evidence.

*02:05:00 Discusses Open Q and A #2, in which a Muslim asks if atheism necessarily entails the idea of an infinite request. Atheists generally argue that there are many options for an atheistic position, not that their position is correct.
02:10:00 the speaker discusses the existence of God and the stage one contingency argument. Stage one argues that things that are contingent have an outside explanation, and the whole set of contingent things has to have an outside explanation. then goes on to explain that things that are contingent can be either based on conceptualization or empiricism. He agrees with this, but clarifies that both ways of understanding contingency lead to the same conclusion: that things are contingent.
02:15:00 a philosopher discusses the concept of a necessary being and how it relates to the ability for something to have power. He says that, in order to have a necessary being, something must be independent, which means that it has no dependencies and no causes outside of itself. He goes on to say that, because a necessary being has this ability, it must also be powerful, which is why it is associated with the concept of power.
02:20:00 explains that from our observations of contingent things, we come to the conclusion that there must be an Eternal, independent thing with unlimited power. They go on to say that if this thing is necessary and has self-sustaining power, it means that it has the ability to be consciously aware and choose.
02:25:00 argues that, while it is necessary to believe in a self-sufficient being who is also a creator of the world, this belief is separate from the question of whether or not this being is Allah.
*02:30:00 Discusses the necessity of a being for its own existence and why it might have power. They also state that, provided the being is grounded in reason, the question of why it exists can be asked in many ways.
02:35:00 Abdulrahman asks why consciousness is necessary for a being to have specific attributes, and Graham responds that if a being doesn't have consciousness, it doesn't matter what its other attributes are. He then poses a hypothetical situation in which aliens are communicating with humans, and if humans can't infer that the aliens are conscious, they would be considered biological.
02:40:00 argues that, if there is a necessary being, it must be timeless and have no relation to time. They say that this is what they believe, except for the part about the consciousness part.
02:45:00 Sharif's argument is that there must always be a Nesto Being and Contingent Beings in all possible worlds, otherwise the eternal cause would be impossible.
02:50:00 OpenQ and A discuss the possibility of a world in which there is an eternal necessary being and contingent beings. OpenQ argues that this is a contradiction, and Lemonade responds that OpenQ is having to affirm both concepts simultaneously.
*02:55:00 Discusses the contradiction between the necessary being necessitating its effect and the impossibility of an infinite regress. He suggests that the contradiction is due to the speaker's understanding of conception.

03:00:00 - 04:00:00

addresses various questions about the Quran and Islamic tradition. He discusses how the Quran confirms certain parts of the Bible, how different interpretations of the Quran can be based on whether or not certain scriptures were actually revealed to Prophet Jesus, and how the Quran and other scriptures can be used to support different positions on scripture interpretation.

*03:00:00 Discusses how, based on the Quran, Muslims believe in the scriptures of the people of the book. He says that while these scriptures may have been corrupted, they are still to be accepted and believed in.

*03:05:00 Discusses how different interpretations of the Quran can be based on whether or not certain scriptures, such as the New Testament, were actually revealed to Prophet Jesus. He goes on to say that, according to Islamic tradition, the Quran confirms what is found in the New Testament books.
*03:10:00 Discusses how the Quran confirms certain parts of the Bible, specifically the letters of Paul. He argues that while the letters of Paul were not written at the time of the revelation, they were still part of the revelation.
*03:15:00 Discusses how the Quran and other scriptures can be used to support different positions on scripture interpretation. He notes that while the Quran makes it easy to understand, Christians are complicated by their belief that certain letters in Paul's letters are part of Revelation.
03:20:00 Sam addresses a question about the Kalam cosmological argument, saying that it can be deductively or inductively established. He goes on to say that metaphysical causation is a higher form of causation that is not related to materialistic causation.
03:25:00 the speaker is trying to explain why it is that the premise of the cosmological argument is valid, but there are ways in which it can be invalidated. He talks about how experience can lead to the conclusion that something exists for a reason other than its materiality, and that this principle can be applied to all material objects.
*03:30:00 Discusses how some people have added words to the Qur'an and distorted its meaning, and how the injil, or instruction, was given to the prophet Isaiah, not four men. He also mentions that without the Quran, we know of many corruption in the Bible.
03:35:00 responds to a question about why some Christians believe that certain attributes of God--such as power--are abstract, and not concrete. He explains that this belief is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of God.
03:40:00 Sharif addresses the question of why abstract properties (properties that cannot produce an effect) must be created by God. He argues that this is necessary in order to account for the fact that knowledge is a power. He also argues that the attributes of God are identical to his nature, which escapes causal dependence and counterfactual dependence.
*03:45:00 Discusses the issue of whether someone is powerful "by virtue of his power" or "by virtue of his Essence." He argues that this question is nonsensical, as the two concepts are contradictory.
*03:50:00 Discusses the various factors involved in verifying a Hadith. The main points are that the Hadith must be verified through the chain of transmission, the reporter, and the mutter.
03:55:00 The narrator explains that the Hadith science involves assessing the chain of reporters, the narrators, and the mutton (the reported Hadith) to determine if it is sahih. If there is a discrepancy, the Hadith may be classified as ahad (not reached the level of motor water).

04:00:00 - 04:15:00

in this video discusses how Muslims have often been unfairly treated by Western scholars, and how this has led to a history of prejudice against them. He goes on to say that some of the same thinkers who argue against Muslims today are indebted to Muslims for their approach to textual criticism. discusses the importance of external verification when studying the Hadith literature, and how archaeological evidence supports its accuracy.

*04:00:00 Discusses how Muslim sources are often not taken seriously by Western scholars, and how this has led to a history of Orientalism and prejudice against Muslims. It goes on to say that some of the same thinkers who argue against Muslims today are indebted to Muslims for their approach to textual criticism.

*04:05:00 Discusses the importance of external verification when studying the Hadith literature, which includes evidence such as archaeological evidence, astronomical data, and textual fragments that all support the accuracy of the literature.
04:10:00 This brother discusses archaeological evidence that supports the Hadith literature. He also mentions that there is a "hang up" in Western academia about Muslims and their history, which he feels is a shame. He states that Muslims should know about their history in order to have a more informed identity.
*04:15:00 Discusses some of the topics discussed on the Open Q and A series, including the philosophy of science and causal fanaticism. They mention that Professor Robert Coons will be unavailable to discuss this topic in December, but they will let everyone know when it is confirmed. Abdulrahman will be coming out soon, and Jose should be aware of this.

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

0:00:07 [Music]
0:00:08 I know
0:00:30 him initiated
0:00:37 uh I've just jumped on on my own for the
0:00:40 moment waiting for the other brothers uh
0:00:42 to join
0:00:44 I thought
0:00:45 let us uh let us start a show on time
0:00:49 so I think I was one minute late but
0:00:51 yeah so while it comes to them to
0:00:52 everyone in the chat already oh my look
0:00:54 at that
0:00:55 we've got Sharif
0:00:58 on time yes
0:01:02 we've got a bunch of comments let us uh
0:01:05 acknowledge them alaikum Salam Joy
0:01:07 uh
0:01:09 unfortunately it's uh recorded so you
0:01:12 can watch another time Insha'Allah
0:01:14 um
0:01:18 hope you're well
0:01:21 we've got a comment here abrahman and
0:01:24 Sharif should start their own separate
0:01:25 channels as well
0:01:27 it would be cool and beneficial
0:01:30 I think we're uh we're gonna try and
0:01:32 convince them to make a lot of content
0:01:34 and work with them like slave horses for
0:01:36 a tap
0:01:39 isn't it
0:01:41 can you imagine having to have your own
0:01:43 channel as well so we got brother Jordan
0:01:45 M in the house
0:01:50 uh as I said yeah I
0:01:54 was to say
0:01:56 hey
0:01:58 I've come to success hey yeah
0:02:02 oh yeah yeah it's on the intro
0:02:08 enjoy it again
0:02:11 foreign
0:02:17 is going to be focused primarily on just
0:02:21 whatever you guys want to discuss it's
0:02:23 an open q a
0:02:25 um I'm gonna get the other brothers on
0:02:27 as well but I need to log in
0:02:30 to
0:02:32 the top on the YouTube so I can pin the
0:02:34 link in the chat
0:02:36 uh so feel free to ask your questions in
0:02:39 the chat for the time being and while
0:02:42 we're waiting for that I'll ask Sharif
0:02:44 how you doing bro what's going on with
0:02:46 you what's new have I Frozen you're not
0:02:48 good man uh although I don't know from
0:02:50 my end it looks like you've frozen for
0:02:53 mine it looks like it as well
0:02:55 I don't know if you have I think I have
0:02:59 it always freezes on a very unflattering
0:03:03 no it's not too bad to be honest
0:03:07 yeah so what's new Bro what you've been
0:03:09 up to what your plans what what one
0:03:12 uh let's see so on Friday I was doing uh
0:03:16 what was I doing on Friday uh I was on
0:03:19 hamza's Den so I had uh
0:03:22 interesting discussion to be honest I
0:03:25 think I've been on hamza's Den now four
0:03:28 straight
0:03:29 uh times in a row
0:03:32 I said to Hamza I said you we need to uh
0:03:36 diversify yes man no diverse if I need
0:03:39 to give you shares into the uh I'm just
0:03:41 then
0:03:43 become a full-time employee
0:03:49 I think tap collectively produces
0:03:53 more content for hams is done than we do
0:03:57 for tap for my channel and for Jake's
0:03:59 got blind probably probably in terms of
0:04:03 hours yeah I think uh yeah but we do get
0:04:06 invited onto a lot of different channels
0:04:08 isn't it recently we uh I think you were
0:04:09 you were invited on EF Dow although you
0:04:11 couldn't make it I don't think yeah so
0:04:13 we're gonna do a
0:04:15 commitment with them where basically
0:04:18 we're going to do like a collaboration
0:04:20 because I need to do Lighthouse lives
0:04:22 for sapiens and they're already pretty
0:04:25 much doing that
0:04:26 um they do it with the the doubt Busters
0:04:30 which is some of the same sort of rubric
0:04:31 so we're gonna do a collaboration with
0:04:33 them where it's like yeah it's our adult
0:04:34 buses in collaboration with Lighthouse
0:04:36 and um
0:04:38 try and make that a regular thing maybe
0:04:40 once every Fortnight or something
0:04:42 inshallah
0:04:43 um which will be pretty good
0:04:45 way other than that uh
0:04:49 have you got uh did you say you were
0:04:51 you've got something in the the pipeline
0:04:55 for Content did you do in a course was
0:04:57 that man
0:04:59 yeah so I think there's a few isn't it
0:05:01 so uh
0:05:03 I think uh yeah we're going to plan to
0:05:05 do more content inshallah maybe not live
0:05:07 stream content or general content for
0:05:10 the uh for the channel
0:05:13 um just need to sort of get it together
0:05:14 actually really but it's not nothing uh
0:05:17 like major in terms of but maybe we'll
0:05:18 go through some sections of certain
0:05:20 books you know read them out maybe a few
0:05:23 paragraphs just to get people to be
0:05:26 aware of some of the wider content that
0:05:28 exists out there especially within the
0:05:31 Islamic
0:05:32 um any uh
0:05:33 the Islamic tradition amongst the
0:05:36 Islamic scholarship so yeah so we've got
0:05:39 we've got uh stuff we've got to that
0:05:41 um coming out and I think yeah abdahman
0:05:43 is going to maybe do maybe course on
0:05:46 epistemology or even time is
0:05:48 epistemology specifically so he's going
0:05:52 to be the audio feels a bit weird
0:05:56 does it feel better now
0:05:58 no there's like a flickering I don't
0:06:00 know if it's just my speakers or if it's
0:06:01 yours no it might be mine you notice I'm
0:06:03 using the laptop audio
0:06:06 if you've got if you've not got
0:06:07 headphones or something you can pop on
0:06:09 uh uh I'll have to have a look because
0:06:12 it might just be the the microphone of
0:06:14 your laptop what will happen to your mic
0:06:16 bro do not get your mic no we I have got
0:06:19 a mic from Villa uh but the problem is
0:06:21 is that you know the laptop that we got
0:06:23 for me so the um connections Are all uh
0:06:27 USBC
0:06:28 USBC I've got some USB C to USB so it's
0:06:34 a USBC and I think yeah I think it would
0:06:36 have to be just like an ordinary one
0:06:38 yeah well you said that you want to come
0:06:41 around from my office anyway yeah
0:06:46 something like this
0:06:49 we can order you one and you could just
0:06:52 oh you can up this one and then I'll
0:06:54 just order another one
0:06:58 yes me okay when you come around I can't
0:07:02 remember why you said you were coming
0:07:03 around but when you do yeah I was gonna
0:07:05 come around to do some videoing
0:07:08 your podcast
0:07:11 that'll be good man yeah so let's um
0:07:14 quickly address the chat a little bit
0:07:16 we've got a couple of people waiting in
0:07:17 the back
0:07:18 um hear the rules so if you're coming on
0:07:21 you need to show your face on camera but
0:07:24 briefly so I can see who you are and
0:07:27 then you can turn it back off if you
0:07:28 want to people who keep their camera on
0:07:30 will be preferred uh so I'm going to
0:07:32 kick Sharif out because he's
0:07:34 uh he sends his camera off I can
0:07:37 absolutely lose her face
0:07:38 um but yeah so if you've got your camera
0:07:40 on you will be prioritized over those
0:07:42 who do not
0:07:43 um but you don't need to keep it on you
0:07:44 just need to pop it on before you enter
0:07:46 so that I can check you not a troll and
0:07:48 also just put briefly in the the back
0:07:50 chat uh in the private chat uh what you
0:07:54 wish to discuss
0:07:55 [Applause]
0:07:57 as well
0:08:00 so uh while you do that I'm just going
0:08:03 to check the uh the comments and we'll
0:08:06 address them
0:08:07 see what I'll go on here so welcome
0:08:08 everyone who has said uh Salam
0:08:12 uh I hope you're all well
0:08:17 uh
0:08:33 a lot of slams I'm just trying to get
0:08:35 through them sorry walaikum salaam
0:08:36 everyone
0:08:40 uh someone's asked
0:08:42 is a lot merciful
0:08:45 and the answer is yes
0:08:49 he is uh
0:08:52 what's that one thing proof
0:08:55 that helps you reach to the level of
0:08:57 your clean so I don't think it's just
0:08:59 one thing to be honest
0:09:01 um I think it's a number of things that
0:09:03 collectively add up
0:09:05 um together
0:09:07 for me like the the main thing that sort
0:09:10 of led me towards wanting to take
0:09:12 shahada for example or like at least
0:09:14 becoming
0:09:15 uh certain about Islam was reading the
0:09:18 Quran reading about the life of the
0:09:19 Prophet Muhammad reading about this
0:09:23 um all of these things collectively
0:09:25 along with certain arguments and things
0:09:27 like that
0:09:28 um that I'd heard
0:09:30 uh talking to theists and also um
0:09:33 sort of thinking about the arguments
0:09:35 that we were hearing from the The
0:09:37 Atheist side of things so there's many
0:09:39 things
0:09:40 I don't know what's going on with Sharif
0:09:42 he didn't say where he was going
0:09:44 there he is
0:09:46 oh he's gone again
0:09:49 you're doing it on purpose what's going
0:09:51 on
0:09:52 okay if you're talking
0:09:56 no it's just been busy I was looking for
0:09:58 my uh headphones but okay
0:10:01 that's fine it's not too it's a little
0:10:03 bit annoying but it's not too bad
0:10:05 um all right so let's have a look
0:10:08 uh so we've got
0:10:11 with a sad shaib uh
0:10:16 okay
0:10:18 all right we're gonna add sad salaam
0:10:21 alaikum hello
0:10:27 how are you doing brother
0:10:32 uh if you like my internet is a bit
0:10:35 laggy here
0:10:36 it's okay
0:10:38 if you if it so I can make an exception
0:10:42 about the camera if it's affecting your
0:10:43 internet speed you're welcome to turn
0:10:45 the camera off
0:10:46 um but it normally doesn't I don't know
0:10:48 why
0:10:50 sure
0:10:51 uh again
0:10:53 I I mean uh I'm a bit you know really
0:10:56 really happy you know
0:10:58 speaking to you guys but uh I just feel
0:11:00 like uh brother Yusuf jazakallah your
0:11:04 story your Inspira you're an inspiration
0:11:06 for myself uh I'm a born Muslim but you
0:11:09 know I took a lot of inspiration from
0:11:10 yourself and brother Sharif uh brother
0:11:13 Sharif I
0:11:14 I wouldn't lie to you but many times in
0:11:17 the gym or you know waiting in traffic
0:11:19 I'm listening to your arguments and
0:11:21 discussions on tap
0:11:23 just trying to get an ounce out of it so
0:11:25 may Allah bless you guys uh I I posted a
0:11:30 question in the comment sections but uh
0:11:31 this is something that has been you know
0:11:33 I'm trying to like understand from your
0:11:36 side like how would you guide a Layman
0:11:38 like me you know uh to understand the
0:11:41 the attributes of God because I I didn't
0:11:45 want to get into these discussions but
0:11:46 you know some I have some friends who
0:11:49 just you know
0:11:50 uh they just forced it on me and it's
0:11:52 it's a little bit of a doubt for me
0:11:54 nowadays so I just wanted to ask you
0:11:55 guys like what would be the approach for
0:11:57 something like
0:11:58 uh you know the the I'm talking about
0:12:00 the attributes where you know we have
0:12:02 yeah in the three schools so yeah
0:12:05 so for me
0:12:07 like I know what you're going through
0:12:09 because obviously and I think everyone
0:12:11 has to go through this
0:12:12 um to some degree some people may be
0:12:14 less than others
0:12:16 um but for me it was just a case of like
0:12:18 I didn't really know anything about all
0:12:20 these differences
0:12:22 um with regards to like the attributes
0:12:23 for example
0:12:25 um and I started my channel and I was
0:12:28 talking to people and then you have
0:12:29 certain people on one side uh saying
0:12:33 this is uh the hack Make sure you follow
0:12:36 us and then certain people on the other
0:12:37 side saying the same thing and it gets a
0:12:39 bit you can get very anxious when you're
0:12:41 trying to sort of deal with these
0:12:42 because it's like you've got people on
0:12:43 both sides
0:12:45 saying the same thing
0:12:47 um and you've not really on the face of
0:12:49 it when people are just saying these or
0:12:51 making little offhanded comments in
0:12:52 YouTube and and things like that any
0:12:55 genuine reason to move towards one or
0:12:57 the other
0:12:58 um in the first instance
0:12:59 and
0:13:01 it it sort of gets confusing well which
0:13:02 way which way do I go
0:13:04 um and the the fear is is mainly that if
0:13:07 I obviously if I don't claim to one
0:13:09 straight away
0:13:11 um that they'll disown me or that people
0:13:13 make to fear of me or blah blah blah
0:13:15 obviously it's not always and I think
0:13:17 the majority of people are not even
0:13:19 necessarily like that
0:13:21 um but it's always present especially on
0:13:23 the internet uh so it can be a very
0:13:25 anxiety ridden thing for me it was just
0:13:28 a case of I want to look into these
0:13:31 um claims
0:13:32 and I want to see which one makes the
0:13:34 most sense so I began studying with
0:13:37 um
0:13:40 I have a lot of love him he gave me the
0:13:43 position but the way he taughted me was
0:13:44 I'm not teaching you to become an ashery
0:13:45 he said um I'm going to teach you and
0:13:49 the position that I hold and then if you
0:13:51 accept it you can access it if you don't
0:13:52 you don't
0:13:54 um and so we I studied with him uh for a
0:13:57 while and then I started looking into
0:13:58 the athletic Creed and uh I also studied
0:14:03 it with someone who's is very familiar
0:14:04 with it and we went through that and I
0:14:06 became more and more convinced of the
0:14:08 athletic read yeah in the end but it was
0:14:10 like a process of engaging with what was
0:14:12 being said on either side looking at the
0:14:14 evidences from the Quran and the Sunnah
0:14:16 et cetera
0:14:18 um and yeah I lean towards one but the
0:14:21 key is to have patience and to just
0:14:22 commit yourself to the to the learning
0:14:24 process
0:14:25 um and be
0:14:27 obviously sincere in that whole Endeavor
0:14:29 that's the only thing I could really say
0:14:31 to you um so I you know I've also
0:14:33 recommend one to you I would recommend
0:14:34 the athletic Creed because that's the
0:14:36 one I believe
0:14:37 but yeah I would say I wouldn't just
0:14:41 tell you to jump into it just because
0:14:42 I've said because I didn't appreciate
0:14:44 that when people were saying it to me I
0:14:46 would say look into it and figure out
0:14:47 why
0:14:48 I would say that if that makes sense
0:14:54 um yeah I mean uh I understand uh but
0:14:57 the thing is brother use of the issue is
0:14:58 with the the nuanced language in these
0:15:02 creedal arguments and books and
0:15:04 everything
0:15:05 it's uh and uh the criteria that is put
0:15:09 forward sometimes you know uh so yeah
0:15:11 confusing for me
0:15:13 so if if it gets like a lot of it can be
0:15:17 confusing
0:15:18 and you know I don't know to be honest
0:15:20 I'm not even 100 sure to what degree
0:15:22 everyone needs to get into all of these
0:15:25 sort of pitting uh knit picking
0:15:28 back and forth
0:15:30 um you know do the Layman need to get
0:15:33 into that absolutely
0:15:36 if they do to what degree I don't know
0:15:40 um
0:15:41 it's a good question I don't know
0:15:43 brother Sharif what would you sort of
0:15:44 say or add to that yeah so uh yeah a lot
0:15:47 of what you said is uh I'd Echo I think
0:15:50 um when we're looking at this these
0:15:52 discussions about the attributes of
0:15:54 Allah the first thing that we need to
0:15:56 understand is uh they are Branch
0:15:59 discussions so long as you're not
0:16:01 denying the fact that Allah has the
0:16:03 capacity to show Mercy to
0:16:07 um Nani to show punishment uh to create
0:16:10 Etc yeah it has the will to choose these
0:16:12 things so
0:16:14 um how you then formulate that
0:16:16 discussion is something different and
0:16:19 the other thing is this is obviously
0:16:21 then there's discussions about those
0:16:23 things which have been accused of
0:16:25 some Scholars or some schools will
0:16:27 accuse the other schools of being
0:16:28 anthropomorphic yeah like what does
0:16:31 yadavallah mean what does the face of
0:16:33 Allah Etc what do these mean yeah so
0:16:36 those types of discussions are scholarly
0:16:38 discussions in in origin they're not
0:16:41 really you know discussions that exist
0:16:45 amongst the laity and I'll explain why
0:16:48 the every single school so whether that
0:16:52 is the ashiri maturity and the Atari or
0:16:55 the humbly school they all accept that
0:16:59 you take the text
0:17:00 yeah as your basis by which you
0:17:03 understand these these whole discussions
0:17:06 the differences between the two or the
0:17:08 three is on what level do you have to
0:17:12 divert from the apparent meaning to the
0:17:17 um any of the maybe a different meaning
0:17:20 a metaphorical meaning yeah
0:17:22 so
0:17:23 all three schools so like I said all
0:17:25 three schools in origin will say we take
0:17:28 the apparent meaning of the text
0:17:30 this certain schools will then say we
0:17:33 have to divert from the apparent meaning
0:17:35 yeah based upon some sort of indicator
0:17:38 Quran
0:17:39 and then the other thing is all three
0:17:41 schools also agree upon the fact that
0:17:44 Allah's names and attributes are not
0:17:46 like creation yeah so anything that
0:17:49 resembles in a way that makes Allah like
0:17:53 a creature a creative thing they would
0:17:56 all disagree with and where the debate
0:17:59 occurs is based upon whether the
0:18:01 language that's used within the Quran
0:18:04 indicates one meaning
0:18:06 and that meaning that it's indicated
0:18:09 contradicts any of this the principle
0:18:12 that Allah does not like created things
0:18:15 yeah that's where the debate is now the
0:18:20 asharis will say that certain words and
0:18:24 certain terms that are used within the
0:18:25 Quran to describe Allah
0:18:27 they only indicate something which would
0:18:31 imply something that's creaturely yeah
0:18:34 and so therefore they divert it away
0:18:36 from the apparent meaning to a
0:18:39 metaphorical meaning and the language
0:18:41 allows us as well the Arabic language
0:18:43 allows it so the word yud has the
0:18:45 connotation also to mean power as well
0:18:47 whereas maybe the Authority or the
0:18:50 ebentamia position would be is to say
0:18:53 that look you can't really say precisely
0:18:57 what the language or the meaning
0:18:59 actually indicates because when we talk
0:19:02 about like an attribute we understand
0:19:06 the attribute in context to what is
0:19:09 describing yeah so for example if I say
0:19:12 hands of a man and then I talk about
0:19:14 hands of a clock
0:19:15 yeah you have different you'll visualize
0:19:18 it or hands of time you'll have
0:19:20 different ways of visualizing what we
0:19:23 mean by this particular term so the
0:19:25 authorities are saying that there's no
0:19:27 reason to divert away from what's
0:19:31 apparent within the text and what
0:19:33 they're also saying is what's apparent
0:19:35 in the text does not indicate like a
0:19:38 bodily limb or like a creaturely feature
0:19:40 yeah so they're saying that's not what
0:19:43 the apparent meaning of the text
0:19:44 indicates anyway so that's why they we
0:19:47 can affirm it because it doesn't commit
0:19:50 you to making resemblance of Allah to
0:19:53 Creation so that's the debate and Imam
0:19:56 gazal if you want to read this in a bit
0:19:59 more you know detail there's obviously
0:20:00 different books out there but Imam
0:20:02 Khazana he wrote a book called alfeso
0:20:04 tafrica which is translated uh into
0:20:07 English by Sherman Jackson
0:20:10 um where he discusses
0:20:13 um this whole debate about when do you
0:20:16 divert and when you don't divert and the
0:20:18 differences between the the asheri and
0:20:21 the the at30 schools or the humbly
0:20:23 schools on this particular topic area so
0:20:27 he talks about this issue uh and he
0:20:29 explains it and
0:20:31 um so yeah so you know in origin you
0:20:35 don't need to get into these nitty-grid
0:20:37 debates because of these nitty-gritty
0:20:38 debates were in response to claims that
0:20:42 to affirm certain things within the text
0:20:44 would uh you know would potentially
0:20:48 cause a contradiction with other aspects
0:20:50 of the text like when Allah says there
0:20:52 is nothing
0:20:53 there's nothing comparable unto him yeah
0:20:58 so if he says that then how do you
0:21:00 understand the Earth because yeah they
0:21:02 would say indicates some sort of
0:21:04 creaturely feature so therefore they
0:21:06 would say that the only way to reconcile
0:21:08 the two is by making one a metaphor yeah
0:21:11 in order to then understand it whereas
0:21:13 the others will say no you can still
0:21:14 affirm it because affirming the apparent
0:21:16 meaning does not indicate or does not
0:21:19 commit you to making the attribute of
0:21:22 Allah like a creature the attribute yeah
0:21:25 so there's lots of lots of nuanced
0:21:28 discussions and
0:21:31 uh you know brothers who run around like
0:21:34 abdulrahman and Jacob in charge Jake
0:21:35 hopefully inshallah and Abdullah will be
0:21:37 coming soon ish help with each other but
0:21:40 you know they've done a lot of reading
0:21:41 in this topic area as as I'm sure Yusuf
0:21:43 and others have as well uh but you know
0:21:46 there's a there's a lot of complexities
0:21:48 in this discussion that's why in origin
0:21:50 this discussion is more any for a
0:21:53 scholarly type of debate but what's
0:21:55 interesting Iman because I remember
0:21:56 because I was uh asheri
0:21:59 yeah uh generally but one of these last
0:22:02 books that he wrote and he wrote is an
0:22:05 advice to the awam to the general people
0:22:07 and in his advice he basically said it
0:22:10 is better for Muslims the ordinary
0:22:13 Muslim just to take the apparent meaning
0:22:14 of the text because uh it's worse to
0:22:18 negate the attribute yeah in in his view
0:22:20 then just to take the apparent meaning
0:22:22 yeah in that situation and it's only for
0:22:25 the scholars to debate whether the
0:22:27 apparent meaning has to be diverted
0:22:29 because it commits you and one of the
0:22:31 reasons why is because most Muslims when
0:22:33 they look at this type of discussion
0:22:34 about these types of attributes they
0:22:37 don't think of Allah spontaneously way
0:22:40 because we understand that Allah is not
0:22:41 like that it then becomes an issue of
0:22:44 whether the language and the Arabic
0:22:45 language and the grammar and the balaga
0:22:48 and the vocabulary does it commit you to
0:22:51 a particular theory of Arabic language
0:22:53 which commits you to particular uh
0:22:57 understanding of the attribute yeah so I
0:22:59 a bit long-winded but
0:23:02 yeah so even because I basically the the
0:23:04 conclusion of his point is to say that
0:23:06 it's better for Muslims just to take it
0:23:09 as it comes rather than getting into
0:23:10 these types of debates
0:23:12 yeah so like for the the average person
0:23:14 like you know because I guess one of the
0:23:16 objections as well is like
0:23:18 um well if it's not like
0:23:21 anything we've experienced and how does
0:23:23 that have any meaning
0:23:25 um and like a good response that was the
0:23:27 one after Rahman gave in his um one of
0:23:30 his Facebook posts
0:23:31 um where he gave the example of the the
0:23:33 pleasures of Jannah so Allah is talking
0:23:36 to us about the pleasures of Jannah he's
0:23:37 talking to us about the things that
0:23:38 we're going to experience there
0:23:40 um but then he also clarifies and says
0:23:42 that this is nothing that any eye has
0:23:44 ever seen any heart has comprehended uh
0:23:47 so on and so forth and so despite the
0:23:49 fact that this reality that is the
0:23:52 reality of Jenna is completely
0:23:54 incomprehensible
0:23:55 um it doesn't mean that the language
0:23:57 being used in the Quran
0:23:58 is completely meaningless like we can
0:24:01 still engage in that conversation we can
0:24:02 still talk about it read this and and
0:24:05 take meaning from it despite the fact
0:24:07 that we've not experienced it although
0:24:08 we have no idea what the experience of
0:24:10 that thing would be like
0:24:12 um so that you know the the point would
0:24:14 then transfer to the other things
0:24:22 the thing is the the the the apparent
0:24:26 meaning approach I mean that's I felt
0:24:28 like since I've lived I mean until I've
0:24:31 understood these arguments I've always
0:24:33 done that way
0:24:49 he comes to the lower Heavens
0:24:52 like when I used to listen to this
0:24:55 before it used to be a reminder for me
0:24:57 but now it's
0:24:59 attributes and all that so it's really
0:25:01 yeah
0:25:03 yeah it is sad because the reality is is
0:25:05 that that's not how when we sort of come
0:25:08 across these Hadith or these ayat of
0:25:10 Quran that's not what the automatic way
0:25:12 of thinking about these things but like
0:25:14 I said is that the the origin of these
0:25:17 types of debates are responses in a
0:25:20 scholarly fashion about whether certain
0:25:22 wordings commit you to certain
0:25:24 commitments yeah now like I said whether
0:25:27 the ashiri or atheri they all agree upon
0:25:31 the fact that you cannot make Allah
0:25:33 like a creature yeah so they agree upon
0:25:36 that they agree upon the fact that you
0:25:38 have to take the text and they agree
0:25:40 upon that if it's warranted that you the
0:25:44 the text comes in a way which allows
0:25:47 metaphor and if you if you apply the
0:25:50 apparent it results in some sort of
0:25:51 contradiction that you would go to the
0:25:53 metaphor so all all groups sex within
0:25:56 Islam agree upon this the question then
0:25:59 becomes the application on certain key
0:26:02 questions and and so ebene and the
0:26:06 modern or the authority school after IBN
0:26:08 teimere they hold a particular view to
0:26:10 say actually the language does not
0:26:12 commit you whereas ashiris and others
0:26:14 say no it does commit you so that's why
0:26:17 it's an academic debate yeah
0:26:20 um so when you when even if you get
0:26:21 somebody who's an authority and you and
0:26:24 he says no you have to affirm the
0:26:26 apparent meaning of the text as it comes
0:26:28 without any thought I will without any
0:26:30 approach the metaphor some people think
0:26:33 what he's saying is when he says the Yad
0:26:36 of Allah you have to you know you have
0:26:39 to affirm the apparent meaning either
0:26:41 other spans as a flesh and blood hand
0:26:43 yeah which is not the case they're not
0:26:45 saying that they're saying because the
0:26:47 your commitment to that word does not
0:26:51 the apparent meaning does not commit you
0:26:53 to that now some people might say no no
0:26:55 they're wrong some people might say that
0:26:57 that's fine but the point is not about
0:26:59 whether they're right or wrong the fact
0:27:00 is is that look at the main thing that
0:27:02 they they're preparing they're affirming
0:27:04 that Allah does not like a creature
0:27:06 whether it commits them or not is a
0:27:08 debate about language it's a debate
0:27:10 about you know ideas around realism
0:27:14 normalism what it means Etc so these
0:27:18 things are more complicated than people
0:27:20 make it out to be yourself
0:27:22 in some cases as well like the verse
0:27:24 itself can be quite a lot more simple as
0:27:27 well than it um than people make it so
0:27:30 like you said like to begin with when
0:27:32 you read that
0:27:33 and and I think when you know if you
0:27:36 read it as a child you know in your when
0:27:37 you're in a pure estate uh and you're
0:27:40 not getting involved in all these back
0:27:41 and forths like you focus on the main
0:27:43 point of these verses and what is the
0:27:46 main point it's exactly what you said
0:27:47 it's the prey in the last third of the
0:27:49 night like pray it's a hardship prayer
0:27:52 like and that gets lost half of the time
0:27:55 in a lot of these debates and that that
0:27:57 is the emphasis that is the focus it's
0:27:59 to try to get you to draw closer to
0:28:01 Allah to develop a relationship with him
0:28:04 um and yeah it's a I think that's
0:28:07 important and obviously if that's the
0:28:10 main focus of what that verse is trying
0:28:11 to do is trying to commit you to to that
0:28:14 that worship that does draw you closer
0:28:16 to Allah
0:28:18 um then that is the thing that we should
0:28:20 be focusing on first and foremost before
0:28:22 we get into these other matters which I
0:28:25 would say come after that and they do
0:28:27 have their importance to a certain
0:28:28 degree
0:28:29 um but for the Layman and for people who
0:28:31 are ignorant in a lot of this
0:28:32 terminology and and what's being said
0:28:35 um especially if it's just confusing
0:28:37 them I would say yeah avoid it say you
0:28:40 know I I affirm whatever Allah affirms
0:28:43 whatever he means by this is is what I'm
0:28:46 going to say and I do not know in this
0:28:49 particular case what he's affirming for
0:28:52 whatever reason if you don't know then
0:28:53 just just be honest and secure yourself
0:28:55 and just don't go beyond with what
0:28:58 allies is describing and if you get
0:29:00 confused in that avoid the discussion
0:29:03 yeah yeah and I think that's that's a
0:29:05 very strong position isn't it and that's
0:29:07 also the position within the Quran all
0:29:09 this panel that mentions that there are
0:29:11 certain verses which are foundational
0:29:12 verses and certain verses which
0:29:15 yeah and so you know those
0:29:19 um understood why the market versus the
0:29:22 the foundational verses which are
0:29:23 Foundation to the book so you know
0:29:25 that's how we do it and you know I think
0:29:27 the problem I think there's a few
0:29:29 problems but one of the problems I think
0:29:31 is that some people on both sides yeah
0:29:34 of this spectrum don't understand this
0:29:36 discussion so the those authories who
0:29:39 don't understand this discussion and
0:29:41 think affirming means literally
0:29:42 affirming and then they fall into error
0:29:44 yeah uh make uh and comes across as
0:29:47 though they're committing themselves to
0:29:49 fall to a claim that Allah does that
0:29:51 creation and then there's those on the
0:29:53 other side which are the Ashley's who
0:29:55 may accuse the uh you know may go to
0:29:58 further in terms of use laying down
0:29:59 their metaphysics yeah uh to then negate
0:30:03 and uh text or divert them away from its
0:30:07 apparent meaning so there's lots of lots
0:30:09 of back and forth and
0:30:11 for most Muslims it's it's not that
0:30:13 important and that personally I've never
0:30:15 really delved into that much detail and
0:30:17 I know lots of books have uh but I've
0:30:20 always tried to just sort of say look
0:30:21 these are my commitments Allah sponsors
0:30:23 unlike creation we take this apparent
0:30:25 meaning of the text if there's no other
0:30:29 indicator to leave the apparent meaning
0:30:30 that's what we take and if there's an
0:30:32 indicator then you know we're allowed to
0:30:35 do so if the language of the Arabic
0:30:37 language permits us to move from a
0:30:39 literal to a metaphor yeah so I think
0:30:42 that's that's the safest option uh to be
0:30:45 and if there are specific issues then
0:30:47 you know you seek scholarly advice on
0:30:49 that
0:30:53 thank you again uh I mean I listen to
0:30:55 this again you know once more I need to
0:30:57 get the name of the book that you
0:30:58 mentioned yeah
0:31:02 can you repeat it again sorry alfaisal
0:31:04 tafrica is
0:31:07 Ali but it's translated by uh Sherman
0:31:11 Jackson uh who's a Muslim academic and
0:31:15 Imam kazali wrote this book remember
0:31:18 he's an ashity he wrote this book
0:31:20 criticizing another Ashley scholar of
0:31:22 hit time who was claiming that the
0:31:25 hamblies or the humbleites
0:31:27 who were the authorities
0:31:29 were basically
0:31:31 because they're making Allah like
0:31:34 creation so he's defending the the
0:31:37 humbles against this accusation even
0:31:40 though he and Ashley and he goes and
0:31:42 explains why they adopt the position
0:31:44 that they adopt yeah so
0:31:48 um
0:31:49 because it just simply gives the
0:31:51 framework about saying look there's
0:31:53 there's there are legitimately maybe if
0:31:56 I can find the book uh we'll put a link
0:31:58 to it but does alcohol just one last
0:32:01 thing I mean I lived I'll leave the chat
0:32:03 but just before after I'm gone like can
0:32:05 you like give me advice like how do you
0:32:07 guys find the time to you know get into
0:32:09 this like you of course we have other
0:32:11 like uh maybe you guys are working maybe
0:32:14 you are studying or you have a family so
0:32:16 how do you find the time to like you
0:32:19 know read and everything and you know
0:32:20 yeah you just gotta you gotta make the
0:32:22 time so you just set yourself a certain
0:32:23 hour where you just say for this hour
0:32:25 once a week I'll commit to reading or if
0:32:28 you can afford more hours but it's just
0:32:30 about organizing the time so I could
0:32:32 show you like my schedule
0:32:35 although it's a bit blurry I've got a
0:32:37 whole whiteboard there
0:32:39 yeah
0:32:39 like you've got a figure out what
0:32:43 commitments you have firstly like what
0:32:45 is it that I have to do like what are my
0:32:48 priorities
0:32:49 um obviously a part of that is going to
0:32:50 be work religion family friends and then
0:32:53 you need a bit of spare time so you need
0:32:55 to like just sit down write these things
0:32:57 out get yourself a little notebook and
0:32:59 work it out properly and then you're
0:33:00 gonna look at what times you're gonna
0:33:02 get up what time's you're gonna go bed
0:33:03 and try to get a committed schedule
0:33:06 um will you make that regular brother
0:33:08 you have time for uh any Total War Games
0:33:11 I I remember War Games I've not played
0:33:14 football games in years
0:33:16 it's been a it's been a while since I
0:33:18 managed to play one properly but uh yeah
0:33:21 at the moment I just play games that I
0:33:23 can jump on and spend half an hour and
0:33:25 then jump off mostly just because I
0:33:27 don't have the time thank you guys I
0:33:30 just have to login
0:33:32 thank you again thank you for so much no
0:33:34 no it's been a pleasure and increase you
0:33:37 and if you victory in this world next
0:33:38 time
0:33:41 okay so the next one is um Mustafa and
0:33:44 Mustafa says he wants to talk about an
0:33:48 issue with Islamic inheritance
0:33:53 I'm not very knowledgeable on this
0:33:55 subject area yeah I'm not really either
0:33:57 to be honest I don't know what to do we
0:33:59 can help you
0:34:00 dealt with this question a bit so
0:34:02 depending on what the question is
0:34:05 uh it might be better waiting for him to
0:34:08 get back possibly
0:34:16 sure if we're gonna be able to answer
0:34:18 this question straight away because it
0:34:19 depends on what the question is but yeah
0:34:21 okay I have another question like about
0:34:23 the contingency argument
0:34:27 well like the contingency argument is
0:34:29 kind of uh every
0:34:33 every like continues an object like has
0:34:36 to have an explanation and if we take
0:34:39 like the set of all objects like whether
0:34:42 it's contingent or uh necessary or like
0:34:46 exists of necessary like the set the all
0:34:48 all the set like it will exist with
0:34:51 it will it will it be contingent or
0:34:53 necessary so if it's contingent it can't
0:34:57 have an explanation and that like
0:34:58 violates like the principle of
0:35:00 sufficient reason so
0:35:03 would you say that it's it's necessary
0:35:05 or it's continuing
0:35:07 so this is are you talking about this
0:35:10 this idea which is called the uh
0:35:13 uh the big conjunctive contingent facts
0:35:17 Mustafa
0:35:19 yeah but like it includes also like the
0:35:22 the reason yeah
0:35:25 yes yes that's right so I think I don't
0:35:28 really frame to I when I look at the
0:35:29 contingency argument I do think it needs
0:35:31 to be a bit careful in terms of why you
0:35:33 frame it because an intelligent uh
0:35:36 philosopher atheist type person might
0:35:38 try to uh trip you up like for example
0:35:41 saying well the fact that Allah
0:35:43 created the universe out of Allah's will
0:35:47 is contingent didn't have to be Allah
0:35:49 wasn't necessitated to create so
0:35:51 therefore does not require a will an
0:35:53 explanation if that doesn't require an
0:35:55 explanation and they say well one thing
0:35:57 which engine that doesn't require an
0:35:59 explanation therefore why can't there be
0:36:02 other things which are continued which
0:36:03 don't require an explanation is that the
0:36:05 general gist of the argument
0:36:10 no I was not like referring to that but
0:36:12 I was saying that like it's similar
0:36:15 though this is a point being similar the
0:36:17 reason why it's similar is because
0:36:20 um
0:36:21 when we when we discussed contingency we
0:36:24 are talking we're talking we are we will
0:36:26 agree and we will acknowledge that there
0:36:28 could be things
0:36:30 yeah that can potentially violate the
0:36:33 principle of sufficient reason yeah and
0:36:35 the only really thing that we know of
0:36:37 that violates it is is free willing
0:36:40 agents is the ability to make a choice
0:36:42 yeah because it's the fact that it comes
0:36:46 internally and it's not necessitated by
0:36:48 any prior causes yeah or even
0:36:50 necessitated by uh their own any uh also
0:36:54 their own nature to make that particular
0:36:56 choice uh because otherwise if you're
0:36:58 necessitate by your own nature or prior
0:37:01 causes external to you then you don't
0:37:03 really have free will yeah because
0:37:05 you're determined to choose what you're
0:37:07 going to choose by your nature or by by
0:37:10 causes so we can acknowledge or accept
0:37:13 that you know free willing agents can
0:37:16 make choices which don't necessarily
0:37:18 have to have a necessitating explanation
0:37:21 means an explanation that necessitates
0:37:23 the action that's going to take place so
0:37:26 maybe you can have non-necessitating
0:37:28 explanations yeah boys like for example
0:37:31 maybe if you give us a baby a choice
0:37:33 between or a child a choice between
0:37:35 strawberry ice cream and chocolate ice
0:37:36 cream they prefer strawberry ice cream
0:37:38 but they could have chosen a chocolate
0:37:42 ice cream meaning it's not necessitated
0:37:44 for them to have chosen strawberry ice
0:37:46 cream so we can then say Oh actually do
0:37:49 we have good reasons to believe that
0:37:51 Free Will has the ability to do
0:37:55 non-necessitating have the ability to
0:37:58 have non-necessitating explanations to
0:38:01 explain why 3D engaging did the action
0:38:03 that they did now I think we have good
0:38:06 explanations and good reasons why we we
0:38:09 can we can believe that there are
0:38:11 freewheeling agents and that we can
0:38:13 believe that other Minds exist and if we
0:38:17 then apply that to the Creator yes we
0:38:20 can say that contingent objects that
0:38:23 have no free will require an explanation
0:38:26 yeah I did not choose for themselves but
0:38:29 there'll be at least one thing which is
0:38:31 eternal or independent that does have
0:38:33 the capacity to make a contingent choice
0:38:36 because that's the choice of will yeah
0:38:38 and that would be the Creator Allah I
0:38:41 don't know if that helps Mustafa in
0:38:43 explaining your your question
0:38:46 yeah but like the the I think that
0:38:50 answers like another question but
0:38:52 my question was like uh
0:38:55 suppose the set of all contingent things
0:38:59 that all all existing things which
0:39:02 include like contingent objects and also
0:39:05 if there is a necessary if there is a
0:39:07 necessary object it also include that
0:39:10 yeah would the set with the set like all
0:39:13 this that would it be necessary or
0:39:15 contingent
0:39:17 okay so yeah I I thought I missed maybe
0:39:21 a misunderstood the initial question
0:39:22 because I thought you were you were
0:39:24 talking about one of the contentions
0:39:25 against you know if you put every
0:39:28 contingent object together or you'd have
0:39:32 to have at least one contingent thing
0:39:35 that doesn't require an explanation to
0:39:37 explain the other contingent things
0:39:39 which was the will yeah uh otherwise
0:39:41 then there wouldn't be continued they'd
0:39:43 be necessary so it's like a it was an
0:39:45 argument that's presented to sort of
0:39:46 refute the contingency arguments that's
0:39:48 what I was talking about so what you're
0:39:50 saying is this is that you're saying
0:39:51 that well what what you then say is that
0:39:54 well existence is necessary at least one
0:39:57 part of existence has to be necessary
0:39:58 yeah and that one part of existence that
0:40:01 would have to be necessary would be the
0:40:02 necessary being in that situation
0:40:04 so if you had all of existence in a pot
0:40:07 collected together yeah
0:40:10 and then at least one part of the uh
0:40:14 Collective uh existence at least one
0:40:16 part of it would have to be necessary
0:40:20 so I don't see what the issue is regards
0:40:22 to that that's like what Joshua
0:40:24 Rasmussen would argue
0:40:25 yeah the issue is that if like the set
0:40:28 all the set of existing object like that
0:40:31 includes the necessary object and also
0:40:34 contingent object yeah if it's
0:40:36 contingent it's going to have an
0:40:38 explanation because it's by definition
0:40:40 the set of all existing objects
0:40:43 and I think I think I I guarantee you
0:40:47 yeah sorry so
0:40:49 are you so you're making a new set now
0:40:51 and you're saying that this the set of
0:40:53 everything that is existing
0:40:55 and that includes the thing that is
0:40:58 necessary and the things that are
0:41:00 contingent
0:41:01 and now you're asking is this set
0:41:04 necessary or contingent is that your
0:41:06 question yeah exactly
0:41:09 well the
0:41:12 the set has a necessary thing in it
0:41:16 which everything else is Reliant upon
0:41:22 so the the set itself
0:41:25 like you you like for example you know
0:41:27 when you're asking about contingent like
0:41:28 the set of all contingent things you're
0:41:30 saying is that set itself
0:41:33 um
0:41:34 contingent unnecessary
0:41:37 and you say well maybe this there's um
0:41:40 is the whole thing is consent is is
0:41:43 contingent upon one of the things in
0:41:46 that set
0:41:47 and we would write that out as a
0:41:49 possibility because we say well no
0:41:50 because that thing is contingent as well
0:41:52 that would only work if one of the
0:41:54 things were
0:41:56 necessary yeah
0:41:59 so if you're saying the set of all
0:42:00 things including the necessary thing
0:42:04 then we would just have to refer to the
0:42:05 set and say well everything that's
0:42:07 contingent in the set is
0:42:10 contingent upon the necessary thing in
0:42:12 the set that's the only way you would be
0:42:14 able to describe it
0:42:16 and remember the necessary thing is
0:42:18 itself self-sufficient
0:42:21 so the the explanation of these like
0:42:25 contingent object would be
0:42:27 an intrinsic explanation like it doesn't
0:42:30 need a
0:42:31 a factor outside of itself to to explain
0:42:34 it yeah but most of the fact I think
0:42:36 you're getting a bit confused because
0:42:37 you're talking about the set of all
0:42:39 existent things and then you're saying
0:42:41 well at least one thing in that set is
0:42:44 gonna have the explanation of all the
0:42:45 other things which are in the set
0:42:47 which uh so that one and that one thing
0:42:50 that's in the set that has the
0:42:51 explanation of everything else doesn't
0:42:53 itself need an explanation so that
0:42:55 should all you're just simply saying is
0:42:57 just simply saying there's contingent
0:42:58 things and these continued things depend
0:43:00 upon some necessary independent Eternal
0:43:02 being yeah I think the question's a bit
0:43:04 misplaced as well because you're
0:43:05 assuming that now we need to say that
0:43:07 the set of all existent things is itself
0:43:11 either necessary or contingent
0:43:14 and that you'd have to make some sort of
0:43:16 reference to something outside of it but
0:43:17 you you're not going to because we're
0:43:18 saying no because there's something in
0:43:19 that set
0:43:21 that doesn't need anything outside of it
0:43:24 in order to explain it that is the
0:43:27 the final point you can't go beyond that
0:43:29 so it doesn't make sense now to make a
0:43:31 set that includes that final point and
0:43:33 then ask about
0:43:35 what what you know what does this thing
0:43:37 have something that it relies upon
0:43:38 outside of it well no because we've
0:43:40 already determined that that thing is
0:43:42 the thing that everything is relying
0:43:43 upon and it is self-sufficient it
0:43:45 doesn't need an explanation outside of
0:43:47 itself so it wouldn't make sense to talk
0:43:48 about the set as a whole as being
0:43:52 contingent
0:43:56 in the Sun
0:43:57 and it wouldn't even make sense to refer
0:43:59 to the set as a whole as being nested
0:44:01 Theory
0:44:02 because we've described the things
0:44:03 within it as contingent and one thing
0:44:06 being necessary
0:44:09 so the question I think is a bit
0:44:10 misplaced does that make sense yeah okay
0:44:12 I understand
0:44:15 all right brother what's your question
0:44:16 about inheritance then we must have just
0:44:18 out of Interest
0:44:19 yeah the the issue is that in in some
0:44:23 cases like in uh
0:44:25 Islamic if you have
0:44:28 sometimes you have for example
0:44:32 more than what other than one basically
0:44:36 yeah
0:44:39 yeah and like the the person for example
0:44:42 who have had to to to have like the
0:44:45 health it wouldn't it wouldn't it's not
0:44:48 possible for him to to have to have
0:44:50 because he would take less than that
0:44:52 like the the owl
0:44:56 yeah yeah so but this has already been
0:44:58 in in the fifth of inheritance it's sort
0:45:02 of it was already solved even even
0:45:04 during the time of this other time this
0:45:07 wouldn't have been something that would
0:45:09 have been new to the um
0:45:11 uh to the well to the fact that the
0:45:14 rules would require uh this process
0:45:17 where you you uh I think basically what
0:45:20 you do is you estimate by adding
0:45:23 more to the share and then divide and
0:45:25 get based upon that owl and just occur
0:45:28 during times
0:45:31 and the sahaba they agreed upon that
0:45:34 principle
0:45:35 um and when the sahaba group on a
0:45:37 principle of how to deal with some of
0:45:39 these issues then uh that becomes what's
0:45:42 known as Master Harbor consensus of the
0:45:45 Companions and that's considered part of
0:45:47 the dean as well so it's not like you're
0:45:50 going outside of the dean to solve this
0:45:51 particular issue does that make sense
0:45:53 I'd like to go into more detail but I'd
0:45:56 have to study it more in terms of going
0:45:58 into more detail but I know there's been
0:46:00 lots of ways to solve not lots of ways
0:46:01 with lots of Articles I've discussed how
0:46:04 this issue is solved
0:46:08 yeah okay
0:46:11 for your questions
0:46:18 okay so next we've got uh yeah yeah uh
0:46:21 you've turned to come on yeah I don't
0:46:23 know if you want to keep it give me a
0:46:25 thumbs up if you can't if you're ready
0:46:27 you know come on okay
0:46:37 I'm just looking to you said you wanted
0:46:39 to ask about the difference between
0:46:40 ontology and metaphysics
0:46:43 yes so the thing is that you know
0:46:46 whenever you guys discuss with someone
0:46:48 you might you you said that this is an
0:46:49 ontologically necessary or
0:46:52 metaphysically necessary you you guys
0:46:54 say that
0:46:58 we might say logically necessary
0:47:00 metaphysically necessary
0:47:02 yeah yeah yeah sometimes you also use
0:47:06 the word ontology in your discussion so
0:47:09 so oncology is is like a sub category of
0:47:12 metaphysics
0:47:13 so okay it's not necessarily a different
0:47:17 thing it's just one branch out of
0:47:19 several branches so like another Branch
0:47:21 might be for example
0:47:23 um I've got a list of things here
0:47:24 causation space and time appearance in
0:47:26 reality uh identity mono is a multiple
0:47:29 pluralism and then ontology ontology's
0:47:32 dealing with like abstract objects
0:47:33 categories uh intentional objects mind
0:47:36 and body God
0:47:38 things like that phenomenology
0:47:40 so it's it's basically the way you want
0:47:43 to understand it is ontology is a branch
0:47:45 of metaphysics it's not something
0:47:47 distinct from it okay
0:47:51 what does that mean
0:47:54 yeah so it's a metaphysics yeah so
0:47:57 metaphysics is to do with uh
0:48:01 sort of how would you understand the
0:48:04 nature of nature isn't it yeah yeah
0:48:07 what's really reality is all about how
0:48:10 does reality really operate
0:48:13 so it's sort of like before the physics
0:48:16 well it was it was named metaphysics
0:48:21 um mainly because the book was written
0:48:22 before the book called physics
0:48:29 yeah I heard about that somewhere that
0:48:32 he wrote two books when I was physics it
0:48:34 was about the actual world and then
0:48:35 metaphysics which was something that it
0:48:39 was like it was it's like a it came
0:48:41 before the physics so they called it
0:48:43 that
0:48:45 um but it's there's an interesting I
0:48:47 guess overlap between the name that they
0:48:50 chose and like the topic itself so it's
0:48:53 sort of deals would be I don't know with
0:48:55 a good way of describing it Sharif do
0:48:57 you think would be it deals with the a
0:48:59 priori
0:49:00 rather than the physics which deals with
0:49:02 the yeah posterior right yeah so just
0:49:05 basically maybe a better way to explain
0:49:08 it is just by example uh so for example
0:49:10 when you've got a person who's a
0:49:12 materialist
0:49:13 his metaphysical commitment is to
0:49:15 believe that all of reality ultimately
0:49:18 is made of the physical things yeah
0:49:21 would that be correct isn't yourself
0:49:22 yeah yeah so that's his metaphysical
0:49:25 commitment or maybe a dualist he would
0:49:27 say all of reality is composed of you
0:49:31 know Mata and uh no matter Spirit yeah
0:49:36 so those are the those are so it's like
0:49:39 I'm trying to understand what's really
0:49:40 sits behind reality what reality really
0:49:44 is that's metaphysics that's what
0:49:46 metaphysical discussion choices tries to
0:49:49 understand and engage in to really
0:49:51 understand so is for example the
0:49:54 question is
0:49:56 um space is it a Continuum can you
0:49:58 infinitely divide it or is it made up of
0:50:02 blocks yeah discrete parts that can't be
0:50:05 infinitely divided that discussion is a
0:50:08 metaphysical discussion we're trying to
0:50:09 understand the foundation of reality
0:50:12 yeah
0:50:15 metaphysical metaphysics is
0:50:18 yeah it kind of makes sense to me now uh
0:50:20 it makes it much more clearer than
0:50:22 whatever I was thinking about it and so
0:50:25 uh where does ontology fit in now in
0:50:27 this example let's say the one that you
0:50:29 said that you gave
0:50:31 so I'm sorry sorry
0:50:34 no but ontology as Joseph said uh is
0:50:37 sort of a branch discussion which is
0:50:39 really talking about the state of those
0:50:40 beings you know the nature of what
0:50:44 exists uh
0:50:47 so for example one like so ontology is a
0:50:50 branch of metaphysics and then you'll
0:50:52 have different branches of ontology so
0:50:54 one of them is abstract objects so
0:50:56 that's an ontological discussion like
0:50:58 what are abstract objects what kind of
0:51:01 existence do they have we're going to be
0:51:04 asking fundamental questions about this
0:51:05 category of things or it could be a
0:51:08 discussion about categories in general
0:51:11 so the philosophy of language for
0:51:13 example a logic it could be about
0:51:15 intentional objects phenomenology so
0:51:19 um a branch of philosophy phenomenology
0:51:21 is the discussion about the most
0:51:23 fundamental
0:51:24 uh
0:51:26 the most fundamental things about
0:51:28 experience itself so how do we describe
0:51:32 these things what's the what are the
0:51:35 fundamental aspects of conscious
0:51:37 experience is another Branch for example
0:51:39 or uh the Mind Body problem
0:51:42 so is there a mind and a body are they
0:51:44 distinct things are they the same thing
0:51:47 these kind of things
0:51:50 yeah so uh if I'm not mistaken the
0:51:52 example that brother Sharif give about
0:51:55 the about the space it would also be
0:51:57 considered an ontological
0:51:59 statement as well right
0:52:08 so uh Sharif gave an example of a space
0:52:11 what it states actually is it could it
0:52:14 be divided infinitely or is it actually
0:52:16 discrete that would that would be an
0:52:17 ontological statement as well am I
0:52:19 correct
0:52:20 uh
0:52:23 it depends
0:52:25 because it could be like space and time
0:52:27 in this random picture that I've pulled
0:52:30 up it's got it as a separate category of
0:52:32 metaphysics
0:52:34 um but there's probably going to be some
0:52:36 overlaps it can sometimes it can be hard
0:52:38 to make
0:52:39 these categorical distinctions between
0:52:41 things and the whole discussion about
0:52:43 categories
0:52:47 um but yeah so there's probably some
0:52:49 ways in which you can talk about space
0:52:51 and time which Falls outside of the
0:52:54 prefix of the discussions of ontology
0:52:56 but then when it comes to talking about
0:52:58 like the
0:53:01 you know the the category of what we
0:53:04 should consider time for example or like
0:53:06 how this there's probably certain
0:53:08 ontological discussions that you can
0:53:10 have about space and time
0:53:12 despite the fact that you could maybe
0:53:14 even categorize the discussion about
0:53:16 space and time separately from ontology
0:53:19 yeah there's going to be Overlook yeah
0:53:21 these these discussions particularly the
0:53:23 definition of metaphysics is is not is
0:53:25 not universally agreed upon in terms of
0:53:28 what actually yeah metaphysics and what
0:53:31 is the area of subject area and so there
0:53:34 are going to be overlaps between the
0:53:36 discussions but like for example like
0:53:38 Yusuf said like the idea of PSR the
0:53:41 sufficient reason that's a metaphysical
0:53:43 discussion yeah maybe not necessarily a
0:53:45 discussion in relation to ontology
0:53:48 yeah because PSL is not really in on you
0:53:51 know he's not a being in itself it's
0:53:52 about a description of a being but it
0:53:54 describes the nature of a reality
0:53:57 and I I wouldn't be too worried of these
0:54:00 when you're thinking about these
0:54:01 Concepts if if it gets a bit of a head
0:54:04 pickle because it's sort of like a part
0:54:06 of the whole process of learning about
0:54:08 these things is trying to see how you
0:54:13 should group these discussions and where
0:54:16 do you draw the lines but like we want a
0:54:19 picture like you know if you Google
0:54:21 branches of philosophy you want it to be
0:54:23 that simple there's always disagreements
0:54:26 about how you should organize these
0:54:27 different discussions and what falls
0:54:30 into what category and why
0:54:33 um
0:54:33 like logic itself or even ethics like
0:54:37 these these conversations
0:54:40 them so like the conversation the
0:54:42 philosophy how to categorize them as
0:54:43 itself like a huge debate
0:54:46 um which is pretty funny but but it's
0:54:48 it's sort of inherent to the the process
0:54:52 so I wouldn't feel
0:54:54 don't feel bad about the fact that these
0:54:57 things can be difficult to wrap your
0:54:58 head around
0:55:00 yeah actually um I was actually
0:55:01 researching it searching about this and
0:55:03 it's available I think Stanford
0:55:06 something stand for the Articles huge I
0:55:10 just I just read a few paragraphs and I
0:55:13 couldn't understand anything but because
0:55:15 it was a bit complicated
0:55:16 so yeah it said that the distinction is
0:55:19 not like clear-cut it is very it is
0:55:21 sometimes there is a lot of overlap
0:55:23 between these definitions I should have
0:55:25 heard that
0:55:26 yeah yeah and I think there's a brother
0:55:29 Mohamed hanif he said uh here he said
0:55:32 metaphysics meta means after so
0:55:35 literally after physics the book on
0:55:36 metaphysics was Aristotle's Place yeah
0:55:39 that's right I think that's what you saw
0:55:40 was uh alluding to yeah I said before
0:55:42 yeah yeah I mean after so yeah so the
0:55:46 point is that it was it it was a it was
0:55:48 a chapter after the discussion of
0:55:50 physics and that's why it became physics
0:55:52 and therefore that's where the term
0:55:54 metaphysics comes from and it it's there
0:55:57 to try to describe the nature of natures
0:56:00 basically
0:56:01 I guess the point I was making then is
0:56:03 that it's not that there's a if it was
0:56:05 if it meant what I thought it meant that
0:56:07 it was before then there would have been
0:56:08 this overlap but I guess there's an
0:56:09 irony in it that it was titled after the
0:56:13 physics
0:56:14 but the discussions about everything
0:56:15 that comes prior to the physics yeah
0:56:19 that's right fundamental questions
0:56:21 so maybe the thing I missed was uh the
0:56:23 irony and the naming of it
0:56:25 but yeah um is there anything else you
0:56:27 wanted to discuss brother or was that
0:56:29 everything yeah I had one more question
0:56:31 and it was I read about principle of
0:56:34 sufficient reason it says that
0:56:35 everything that exists as a positive
0:56:37 thing that happens as a cause now I
0:56:40 think that that wasn't very clear what
0:56:42 you said that everything that what
0:56:45 everything that exists has a reason for
0:56:47 its existence and everything that that
0:56:50 happens every event that occurs has the
0:56:54 reason for it occurring okay we wouldn't
0:56:56 necessarily saying
0:57:00 so yeah so my so I actually I think I
0:57:03 read some somewhere about this as well
0:57:05 that
0:57:06 a question about it that would it apply
0:57:09 to the principle of sufficient reason
0:57:10 itself and all the other you know
0:57:12 logical assumptions that we have like
0:57:14 law of non-contradiction law of excluded
0:57:16 middle and all about them within that
0:57:18 apply to these laws as well
0:57:23 what do you mean they need an
0:57:25 explanation why these laws exist yeah
0:57:27 yeah yeah but that's that's a different
0:57:30 uh yeah it's a different
0:57:33 I think you're mixing up different
0:57:35 issues yeah
0:57:36 so when when we're talking about for
0:57:39 example everything requires an
0:57:41 explanation yeah there are strong
0:57:44 versions of this yeah and there are even
0:57:47 the principle of sufficient reason the
0:57:49 strong versions and there are weaker
0:57:51 Birds yeah like you have a strong
0:57:54 version which basically says everything
0:57:57 has to have an explanation as to why it
0:58:00 exists in the way it exists so a
0:58:03 contingent being has an explanation
0:58:06 outside of itself for why it exists
0:58:09 whereas an essay being has an
0:58:11 explanation within itself as to why it
0:58:13 exists now the thing with this is it
0:58:17 commits you to then say well the
0:58:18 necessary being had to create the way it
0:58:21 created by its own nature yeah
0:58:24 by necessity of its own nature which
0:58:27 then means that the Creator had to
0:58:30 create yeah necessarily and then what
0:58:34 the Creator created also has to be
0:58:36 created necessarily and so therefore
0:58:38 creation has to be necessary as well in
0:58:42 that sense so well that'd be necessary
0:58:44 through another yeah I feel the
0:58:45 necessary being
0:58:47 so he commits you to these types of
0:58:49 things that's a very strong version of
0:58:51 the PSR whereas a a more any uh weaker
0:58:54 version would basically allow for this
0:58:56 idea of free will yeah and I think for
0:58:59 for us as customers what we tend to do
0:59:01 is we try to we try to limit as possible
0:59:05 our metaphysical commitments because you
0:59:07 know for us to try to understand the
0:59:09 nature of natures is very very difficult
0:59:11 yeah because we're limited human beings
0:59:13 so we want to try and make sure that our
0:59:15 commitments yeah are minimal yeah and
0:59:19 that our opinions and positions that we
0:59:22 hold are Justified yeah so we have
0:59:25 justifications for the opinions that we
0:59:28 hold like for example that we Justified
0:59:30 generally is it reasonable to accept
0:59:32 that other human beings exist that who
0:59:34 other human beings have agency Etc yeah
0:59:37 so that's how we would
0:59:40 adopt uh our positions on these issues
0:59:43 so
0:59:44 um I wouldn't say that everything
0:59:46 requires a course a cause or every and
0:59:51 requires a cause in that sense because
0:59:54 we can accept that certain things uh
0:59:57 like the ability to choose does it
0:59:59 require
1:00:00 a necessitating explanation for why it
1:00:04 exists the way it exists yeah
1:00:07 or why it might made the choice to do
1:00:12 yes get that but then for free but
1:00:14 wouldn't that like the cause would be
1:00:17 within ourselves that's why we could be
1:00:20 within ourselves yeah so yourself really
1:00:22 quickly sorry uh yeah Joseph um trying
1:00:25 to join the studio
1:00:27 so I don't know if we can kick one
1:00:29 person out
1:00:33 sorry yeah yeah so go carry on
1:00:36 yeah yeah so uh as you said that you
1:00:40 know the freeway would you know would
1:00:41 have a weaker position for the principle
1:00:44 of sufficient reason but wouldn't free
1:00:46 will be something within us like
1:00:48 wouldn't the cause of evil would be
1:00:50 something interesting for us
1:00:52 yeah but the reason for why we chose one
1:00:55 thing over another we'd say the reason
1:00:57 for free will that which is Free Will it
1:01:00 is free will that's the explanation but
1:01:02 then why did it why did it make us
1:01:04 choose one over another you know you can
1:01:07 have reasons partial explanations but
1:01:10 you can never have a total explanation
1:01:12 for this
1:01:14 uh just a nature of free will yeah uh
1:01:18 but you know we don't like I said we
1:01:20 don't need to any what's the word we
1:01:23 don't need to get into a deep
1:01:25 uh philosophical argumentation which is
1:01:29 watertight to explain why this created
1:01:31 this all we need to say is that are we
1:01:34 rationally Justified to believe that for
1:01:37 example I have a mind I have the ability
1:01:39 to choose yeah I'm an agent if we have
1:01:42 good reasons to accept that or you have
1:01:44 a a mind and you have the ability to
1:01:47 choose you're not a robot then you know
1:01:50 we we can then move from that and say
1:01:52 well what about the necessary being
1:01:53 where there's no prior causes to cause
1:01:55 it to act the way it does then we can
1:01:57 say yeah we have justifications to
1:01:59 believe that this necessary being uh you
1:02:03 know has a mind and has the ability to
1:02:04 choose yeah uh and and we don't have to
1:02:07 say it's necessitating to choose in a
1:02:09 particular way because that's the whole
1:02:11 point is is that we come to the
1:02:13 conclusion that you have a a being a
1:02:17 Creator who chose to create a God and
1:02:19 not just some sort of mechanical force
1:02:21 that was necessarily just you know
1:02:24 emanating creation yeah
1:02:36 you you muted yourself
1:02:39 go go go go go go go join all right so
1:02:45 yeah one more question it's not it won't
1:02:48 be that that long so is there any other
1:02:52 way to you know get in touch with you
1:02:54 your brothers other than joining a live
1:02:56 discussion like can I ask my questions
1:02:58 yes so you can uh use the lighthouse
1:03:01 project uh I'll put the link in the chat
1:03:05 the sapienceinstitute.org
1:03:09 forward slash lighthouse
1:03:11 you can book a private one-to-one
1:03:13 meeting
1:03:14 uh with either myself or one of the
1:03:16 other mentors I I've been trying to get
1:03:19 a brief on there I think it's a very
1:03:21 difficult brother to Wrangle with a
1:03:23 particular hour abdulrahman was on there
1:03:25 but he's been a bit busy but he's going
1:03:26 to be back on there at some point
1:03:27 inshallah
1:03:33 how you doing bro
1:03:39 I was gonna say yeah you can contact any
1:03:41 of the brothers via you know
1:03:43 um Facebook Messenger or Twitter you
1:03:47 know any of them yeah yourself isn't but
1:03:49 you can contact him for sapiens but the
1:03:51 other brothers if they're not on sapiens
1:03:53 you can contact us by that yeah you from
1:03:56 uh Gujarat
1:03:58 yes I am
1:04:00 James Patel Ahmedabad yes
1:04:07 yes I know Baruch
1:04:10 I'm from Coty originally
1:04:13 yeah
1:04:16 originally yeah from parents
1:04:20 okay that's that's good to know
1:04:22 I'm doing that so yeah anyway yeah
1:04:32 no problem the link is sapience
1:04:35 institute.org forward slash Lighthouse
1:04:37 and you can book one to one private
1:04:38 meetings there
1:04:41 okay okay okay
1:04:51 nice to have you
1:04:53 able to talk or are you a bit busy at
1:04:55 the moment still yeah I can talk I'm
1:04:57 just still a bit limited but yeah I'm
1:04:59 good to be here
1:05:01 okay so the next good person we've got
1:05:04 coming on is uh brother no name you've
1:05:07 got your camera on bro do you want to
1:05:08 leave it on or turn it off give me a
1:05:09 thumbs up if you're ready to come on
1:05:11 obviously cat well I'll just give me a
1:05:13 thumbs up in the chat if you've turned
1:05:14 your
1:05:15 your camera off
1:05:17 you ready
1:05:19 thumbs yeah he's ready he's ready all
1:05:22 right
1:05:26 how are you doing brother uh good
1:05:29 how can we help you sir yes uh I planned
1:05:33 out all the questions out so uh I got
1:05:36 all laid out so um first I want to ask
1:05:40 it will you ever do um
1:05:42 a video of argument of design like you
1:05:46 know like a whole video of that um yeah
1:05:49 but I guess we could make it a topic of
1:05:51 a future stream inshallah because um a
1:05:53 video that I would recommend you is um
1:05:55 you know professors dev's response to
1:05:58 James talk because this is more like
1:05:59 scientific like um yeah
1:06:02 but um
1:06:04 you know Professor Dave his response to
1:06:06 James talk because like uh you basically
1:06:08 dealt with it and um David Humes like um
1:06:11 you know like a response to
1:06:14 argument from design at all
1:06:17 uh I've not heard of them are you
1:06:19 talking about the uh biochemist who
1:06:21 talks about a biogenesis and the
1:06:23 possibility of it yeah
1:06:26 so he's in a response against James told
1:06:30 the theist he's a Christian so he's also
1:06:34 somebody does nanotechnology develops
1:06:36 that uh using biological
1:06:40 um living things basically or biological
1:06:42 agents proteins things like that
1:06:45 all right interesting to look at that I
1:06:49 think personally I don't really use the
1:06:51 design argument as a leading argument to
1:06:54 prove that all those panels exists but I
1:06:56 do think that with when you prove
1:06:58 certain things like a necessary being
1:07:01 then you know to prove further some of
1:07:04 the attributes of a necessary being then
1:07:06 the design argument then fits in very
1:07:09 nicely in that situation you know and
1:07:11 similar to what Imam uh it becoming uses
1:07:13 actually he uses sort of the idea of
1:07:16 continuity of nature in order to and
1:07:18 design in order to argue that there is
1:07:20 only one Creator because this all
1:07:22 indicates one Creator yeah
1:07:24 yeah
1:07:26 um well um so to continue um I want to
1:07:29 talk about the criticism because I was
1:07:32 going to talk about existence of God but
1:07:34 um the criticism from um
1:07:37 uh your last video from Matthew bardos
1:07:40 especially he said um ever never heard
1:07:43 of it anyone claimed an appeal to
1:07:45 mystery is a logical contradiction just
1:07:48 that it is fallacious and unreasonable
1:07:50 that's the whole premise of this episode
1:07:53 seems to be a strong man perhaps just
1:07:55 try to shift the burden of proof to the
1:07:57 non-believers And to clarify yes I have
1:08:00 heard of people claiming that some
1:08:03 so-called arguments from ignorance are
1:08:06 contradicting
1:08:08 uh a classic
1:08:11 um is we do not know where the universe
1:08:13 came from therefore we know the universe
1:08:16 must have come from a deep deity I do
1:08:19 not know but I do could not uh is
1:08:22 obviously a contradiction so I wanted to
1:08:25 ask you your thoughts on that
1:08:26 so well yeah I I
1:08:29 said just so if you want to go ahead
1:08:31 what's the question about it
1:08:38 he was saying
1:08:40 and so his basic argument sounds like is
1:08:43 that he said firstly that uh appeal to
1:08:46 Mysteries fallacious yeah
1:08:49 uh the second thing that he said was
1:08:52 um
1:08:56 last time you were away so we had a
1:09:01 stream which was the difference between
1:09:02 appeal to mystery and appeal to a
1:09:04 logical contradiction so when you were
1:09:06 in turkey at the time okay okay yeah no
1:09:07 I wasn't here so let me um let me see if
1:09:11 I can try to understand you know respond
1:09:13 because a lot of things have been said
1:09:14 and a lot of things that have been said
1:09:15 seem to be misunderstanding what the
1:09:18 whole show was about which to be fair
1:09:20 with somebody like Matthew bardos
1:09:22 doesn't uh you know doesn't surprise me
1:09:25 that he doesn't quite get it yeah uh the
1:09:28 issue is about appeal to mystery
1:09:30 difference between appeal to mystery and
1:09:32 appeal to a logical contradiction that
1:09:35 we're trying to explain is that when
1:09:38 somebody appeals to mystery he may have
1:09:40 good reasons he may have good reasons
1:09:42 maybe because what he's being asked to
1:09:45 affirm is underdetermined yeah it's not
1:09:48 really clear about what the actual
1:09:50 explanation is yeah and if it's under
1:09:53 determined because there's no
1:09:55 contradiction
1:09:56 uh in affirming it you know a particular
1:09:59 idea uh it doesn't lead to something
1:10:02 that is true and not true at the same
1:10:04 time it doesn't need something which is
1:10:06 a contradiction which you would have to
1:10:07 then negate yeah does that make sense
1:10:09 originally no name at that point uh yeah
1:10:12 uh to
1:10:15 um response um someone called Peaceful
1:10:17 Warrior responded I thought she's not
1:10:19 just a subset of logical contradiction I
1:10:22 know yeah I understand that yeah I I
1:10:25 understand that policies are not just
1:10:27 that I'm just saying is that this I
1:10:29 appeal to a mystery cannot just simply
1:10:32 be said ah is a fallacy in and of itself
1:10:35 because that doesn't make it doesn't
1:10:38 just make a fallacy but I'm just saying
1:10:40 what the show is about so yeah you could
1:10:42 say yeah there's no justification for
1:10:45 this appeal to mystery You could argue
1:10:47 that yeah but that's not the discussion
1:10:50 and the reason why we had this
1:10:51 particular discussion is because there
1:10:53 are certain things certain positions
1:10:55 within where like the the the
1:10:58 within Islam like a lot of matters of
1:11:00 the animal rape yeah knowledge of the
1:11:03 Unseen which you can't rationalize like
1:11:06 for example the angels we can't
1:11:08 rationalize the angels we cannot say how
1:11:11 the Angels you know move through the sky
1:11:14 or travel between you know the the
1:11:18 universe we don't know these things but
1:11:20 the question then becomes is is it a
1:11:23 contradiction is it something that is
1:11:25 impossible to affirm if it's not
1:11:27 impossible to affirm and we have good
1:11:29 reasons to affirm the text that affirms
1:11:33 the belief in the Angels then we are
1:11:36 legitimate or justified in believing in
1:11:39 angels okay so that just because I can't
1:11:43 explain at what angels look like doesn't
1:11:46 mean that I don't have justification to
1:11:49 um any uh reject Angels yeah because I
1:11:53 might have other reasons and let me give
1:11:55 you a practical example of this so
1:11:56 paracetamol is like a painkiller in the
1:11:59 UK yeah yeah now we don't know the last
1:12:03 time I studied paracetamol there was no
1:12:06 known mode of action there was no actual
1:12:08 defined what how paracetamol Works how
1:12:12 it lowers the body's temperature when
1:12:14 you have like high temperature or how
1:12:16 does it
1:12:17 uh you know it's pain killing effect
1:12:20 seems to be central nervous system but
1:12:22 they don't know exactly which is
1:12:24 different to aspirin and ibuprofen where
1:12:26 they know it's the Cox enzyme cycle
1:12:28 oxygenase enzyme which has been blocked
1:12:30 yeah which is a part of the inflammatory
1:12:32 response so they don't know now just
1:12:34 because they don't know doesn't mean
1:12:37 that they're not justified to believe
1:12:38 that paracetamol has this effect yeah so
1:12:42 okay you know in that situation you know
1:12:44 just because you there's an unknown
1:12:46 aspect to it I mean that you negate it
1:12:50 and this is the same thing to be honest
1:12:52 we said this about uh Christians they
1:12:54 appeal to mystery uh even atheists
1:12:57 appeal to mystery or other people from
1:12:58 religions appeal to mystery atheists
1:13:01 will appeal to mystery bar basically
1:13:02 saying we don't know what caused the
1:13:03 universe to exist but something did and
1:13:07 so
1:13:08 you know we're not going to affirm
1:13:09 whether it's a sentient being or not
1:13:12 yeah
1:13:13 yeah
1:13:14 um logical not as well yeah uh just to
1:13:17 end off at um his common person he said
1:13:19 uh
1:13:20 um to this reply here um Matthew Padres
1:13:23 replied yeah well some are yes hence why
1:13:26 I also classified her and gave an
1:13:29 example of an argument from ignorance
1:13:31 which is similar to an appeal to
1:13:32 Ministry
1:13:33 mystery and it it is indeed a logical
1:13:37 contradiction do you have any thoughts
1:13:39 on that so what was his argument
1:13:42 so you basically just said well some are
1:13:45 yes hence I am
1:13:47 I clarified and give an example of an
1:13:50 argument from ignorance which is Sim is
1:13:53 similar to an appeal to mystery and
1:13:56 indeed a logical contradiction
1:13:58 you know I I still don't know what his
1:14:01 argument which is similar to the
1:14:02 argument appealing to ignorance
1:14:05 yeah and how it is
1:14:07 sent that the argument of ignorance is
1:14:10 like similar to appeal to mystery
1:14:12 question
1:14:17 maybe he's misunderstood the whole show
1:14:20 the argument about belief in a Creator
1:14:22 yeah oh the yeah is not an appeal to
1:14:25 mystery we're not appealing to we're not
1:14:27 saying the create creative things
1:14:30 occurred and we don't know why or
1:14:32 continue things exist comes into being
1:14:35 we don't know why therefore God exists
1:14:37 and it's a mystery we're not saying that
1:14:39 we're saying that contingent things
1:14:41 things which let's make it down even
1:14:44 more similar things are limited they are
1:14:46 dependent and they're dependent upon
1:14:48 something else for its existence
1:14:50 requires some sort of independent thing
1:14:53 independent internal thing to exist yeah
1:14:57 which doesn't require any other
1:14:59 explanation doesn't depend upon any
1:15:00 other thing for its explanation that's
1:15:02 what we're saying as a foundation yeah I
1:15:04 think everybody generally agrees upon
1:15:06 that unless they want to affirm that
1:15:07 dependent things came out from nothing
1:15:09 but a lot of atheists don't want to say
1:15:12 that say no there is one thing that
1:15:14 would be independent maybe matter maybe
1:15:17 space time maybe uh you know quantum
1:15:20 mechanics maybe uh energy yeah whatever
1:15:24 it is they want to appeal to at least
1:15:25 appeal to one thing generally that is
1:15:28 independent now where then say what is
1:15:31 the best explanation for this
1:15:33 independent thing yeah is it something
1:15:35 with the mind or without a mind is it
1:15:38 some other physical thing or
1:15:39 non-physical thing yeah a non-physical
1:15:41 thing here means something that had the
1:15:43 ability to make a choice yeah so yeah
1:15:46 that's what we're saying that's what
1:15:47 we're explaining then we're saying okay
1:15:48 if we take all of the arguments whether
1:15:50 that is to be with design whether it's
1:15:52 fluid contingency was to how we all know
1:15:54 of the mind all of these arguments
1:15:57 um the fact that we don't have arbitrary
1:15:59 limits upon this necessary being Etc
1:16:01 then the best explanation would be a
1:16:04 independent being that had the ability
1:16:07 to create yeah so there is no appeal to
1:16:11 mystery there's justification and the
1:16:14 justification of based on some you know
1:16:16 either rational observations or whether
1:16:19 it's to do the uh you know certain
1:16:21 logical a priori commitments that people
1:16:24 may believe are Justified Etc yeah
1:16:26 yeah uh just a few more questions and
1:16:29 then I'll let you guys go
1:16:31 um all right so uh I wanted to ask you
1:16:35 is this like a good argument so
1:16:37 philosophers such as with Wittgenstein
1:16:40 take a view that is considered
1:16:43 considered anti-realist and it paused
1:16:46 philosophical arguments related to God's
1:16:48 existence for instance Charles Taylor
1:16:51 contends that the real is whatever will
1:16:55 not go away if we cannot reduce it about
1:16:58 gut reduce talk to about God to anything
1:17:03 else or will place her or private faults
1:17:05 then perhaps got it is as real as
1:17:08 anything
1:17:15 I understand what the quote is saying
1:17:18 but I've not read that so I don't want
1:17:20 to really comment
1:17:22 yes yes of your muted sorry if you can
1:17:26 summarize the question because I didn't
1:17:28 um
1:17:29 okay
1:17:31 no name can I just maybe help summarize
1:17:34 it boom it's a bit difficult to follow
1:17:37 when you're reading it okay yeah um Let
1:17:39 me let me try and summarize it for you
1:17:41 guys and then maybe no name can uh help
1:17:43 clarify whether it's basically saying
1:17:45 that in order to understand what's real
1:17:47 is what you can't argue against and get
1:17:49 away from yeah and the fact that the
1:17:52 existence of God or the discussion about
1:17:53 God there are no arguments that seems to
1:17:56 completely remove it from the minds of
1:17:59 people so therefore we should be realist
1:18:01 about it is that generally the essence
1:18:03 of what Wittgenstein was saying
1:18:06 uh yeah I would say well you could say
1:18:09 that about anything then couldn't you
1:18:11 it's uh is the thing that's on my desk
1:18:14 real without a shadow of a doubt or
1:18:17 could it be a figment of my imagination
1:18:19 there's lots of things that people can
1:18:21 put towards everything
1:18:24 is basically arguing the fact that
1:18:26 because you will always be debating the
1:18:31 fact that this thing is real or not real
1:18:33 yeah and it will not you can't negate
1:18:36 the the reality of what what it is so
1:18:38 you can't yeah
1:18:40 between the fact that you can debate
1:18:43 something and whether or not that thing
1:18:44 could be considered real like for me the
1:18:46 case is the human being is argumentative
1:18:48 and I've seen people argue to the blue
1:18:51 in the face about things
1:18:52 just for the sake of arguing sometimes
1:18:57 growing up with my brother I don't know
1:18:59 if like any of you've got siblings that
1:19:01 you just end up getting into Petty
1:19:03 arguments with and the person most of
1:19:05 the time can even know that they're
1:19:06 wrong but they'll just argue anyway
1:19:08 so like the ability to argue upon
1:19:11 something I don't think has anything to
1:19:12 do with whether or not that thing is
1:19:14 real yeah and I don't think at all we
1:19:16 should be rooting our judgment on
1:19:19 whether or not something is real on
1:19:21 whether or not people are arguing about
1:19:22 it I just think it's silly
1:19:27 [Music]
1:19:28 I'm sorry I cried
1:19:32 but I think that answers the question
1:19:35 um yeah
1:19:37 um okay
1:19:39 um
1:19:40 no name if it works for you that's
1:19:42 that's not a problem there are arguments
1:19:45 like transcendental arguments to say
1:19:47 things like the idea of God the idea of
1:19:51 an unlimited independent being is not
1:19:54 something that would uh come to the mind
1:19:56 of a human being because everything that
1:19:57 we see is created and contingent
1:20:00 yeah yeah
1:20:04 um okay the so I'm going to talk about
1:20:07 the um omnipotent products suggests that
1:20:11 the concept of an omnipotent entity is
1:20:14 logically contradictory by considering
1:20:17 questions such as can go God create a
1:20:19 rock so big that you cannot move or if
1:20:22 godit is all powerful could God create
1:20:24 being more powerful than him so so
1:20:27 they'll say that this is in
1:20:29 contradiction so
1:20:31 would you contend that it is on no name
1:20:33 you should know the answer to this
1:20:36 how would you answer it
1:20:41 um
1:20:42 you know reverse card wait I think I've
1:20:43 got a yeah
1:20:47 my man's calling me Wittgenstein and
1:20:49 he's asking that question
1:20:53 no I'm not saying I'm not saying your
1:20:55 questions invalid it's a it's a question
1:20:56 that a lot of uh people raise yeah a lot
1:20:59 of atheist race even for Muslims as well
1:21:02 um it's not irrelevant it's irrelevant
1:21:05 but I think you could work out the
1:21:07 answer that's all I'm saying
1:21:10 because um at least you forgot the
1:21:13 answer because I can't I remember
1:21:14 watching used episode video on um
1:21:17 rationality rules against him uh on this
1:21:19 and um
1:21:23 yeah this topic yeah so what was the
1:21:28 question again
1:21:30 Paradox yeah
1:21:33 it's a contradiction God is all powerful
1:21:36 but he can't create a rock that he can't
1:21:38 lift
1:21:39 is is the problem is with the question
1:21:42 is asking things about something
1:21:44 that don't relate to that thing
1:21:48 yeah
1:21:50 are you following so if I say yeah
1:21:53 um
1:21:55 trying to think of a good example
1:21:56 example uh so you know if you're asking
1:22:00 like can this thing
1:22:02 which
1:22:04 has nothing to do with this other
1:22:05 category of things
1:22:07 uh can it do this or not
1:22:09 it's it's just silly like with regards
1:22:11 to Allah
1:22:13 he's not
1:22:15 um like he he can create a rock of any
1:22:17 size
1:22:18 yeah so it doesn't matter how big the
1:22:20 rock is he can he like he can make it
1:22:22 bigger bigger bigger bigger bigger he
1:22:24 can keep making rocks
1:22:26 as big as he wants to and he could
1:22:28 always lift them all
1:22:30 because he's still powerful and they are
1:22:32 all dependent upon him to say to act as
1:22:35 if the ability to not lift the rock is a
1:22:38 power
1:22:40 that is absurd because it's not a power
1:22:42 it's the negation of a power it's an
1:22:45 it's not an ability it's an inability to
1:22:48 do something
1:22:49 so we're saying God is completely able
1:22:52 yeah with regards to logical
1:22:55 possibilities
1:22:57 and if you like when it comes to like
1:22:59 mentioning contradictory things we say
1:23:02 these things are not things in and of
1:23:04 themselves because they're like you know
1:23:05 when um we used to have a robot
1:23:08 yeah in high not in high school and
1:23:10 primary school and you supporting
1:23:12 coordinates into the thing and you could
1:23:15 tell it to move forward plus one meter
1:23:17 move backwards plus one meter and then
1:23:20 sometimes you could put coordinates in
1:23:22 Brackets so you could say move forward
1:23:24 plus one meter and uh plus minus one
1:23:28 meter and that would be one command
1:23:31 and so if you I command then it wouldn't
1:23:33 move anywhere it wouldn't do anything it
1:23:35 would move zero
1:23:36 because the one command negates the
1:23:39 other plus one negates minus one
1:23:41 yeah and they equal zero so when when
1:23:43 you add opposite terms together
1:23:47 the same sort of thing happens if you're
1:23:48 saying you know meet my friend here
1:23:50 Sharif who is a married Bachelor like
1:23:53 you're not really saying anything
1:23:55 because to be married is the negation of
1:23:57 to be a bachelor
1:23:59 so I'm not telling you anything about
1:24:01 Abu Sharif
1:24:02 because
1:24:06 the the two phrases or the two terms I'm
1:24:08 using destroy each other
1:24:10 yeah if I said meet my friend here
1:24:12 Sharif who is married you're gonna
1:24:14 you're gonna understand what I'm saying
1:24:15 I'm I'm communicating something to you
1:24:18 if I say the opposite meet my friend
1:24:20 here
1:24:21 he is a bachelor you're gonna understand
1:24:23 what I mean but when I join the two
1:24:25 together I'm not communicating anything
1:24:26 to you at all
1:24:28 yeah yeah and it's the same thing like
1:24:31 can God create a rock so big that he
1:24:34 couldn't lift it is asking can is God
1:24:37 powerful enough
1:24:39 to create something so big that it makes
1:24:41 him not powerful
1:24:44 like it's there's just there's a
1:24:46 contradiction in terms it's not
1:24:49 it like basically in order to be
1:24:51 all-powerful you also need to be not
1:24:54 all-powerful
1:24:55 which yes the sentence doesn't make
1:24:58 sense yeah the the the semantics of the
1:25:02 sentence is not doesn't have any meaning
1:25:05 doesn't contain a meaning
1:25:07 so it's like gibberish basically that's
1:25:10 the problem although it's phrased as if
1:25:12 it has meaning so in the same way that
1:25:14 married Bachelor like you can point at
1:25:16 this word and say this word has meaning
1:25:17 you can point at that word and say that
1:25:19 word has meaning
1:25:20 and you can say well I'm saying he's a
1:25:22 you know a married person who's not
1:25:23 married
1:25:24 and like you can identify the separate
1:25:26 parts of the statement that make meaning
1:25:27 but it's a there's a collective put
1:25:30 together
1:25:31 holistically they just don't make sense
1:25:33 yeah um all right so um to move on um
1:25:37 so um I want to ask you a question so do
1:25:40 you know any athletes that do you uh
1:25:43 think that this argument is bad
1:25:46 is a bad argument
1:25:48 I don't know probably okay
1:25:51 I think most philosophically
1:25:55 um Soviet atheists know that this is
1:25:57 about argument
1:25:58 because all all the theists has to say
1:26:01 is was omnip omnipotent
1:26:05 is uh you know can do all things all
1:26:09 they will say is I think is that which
1:26:11 is a logical possibility
1:26:13 or a metaphysical possibility so it
1:26:16 means that God can do all metaphysically
1:26:18 possible things or or logically possible
1:26:21 things that's all that would that's all
1:26:23 they would say and so then they would
1:26:25 say well
1:26:26 um you know a a squared circle is not
1:26:29 likely even can God create a square
1:26:31 circle they say well that's not a
1:26:33 logically possible thing
1:26:34 yeah so it's I think
1:26:38 this is an argument that more the
1:26:40 internet type atheists would present
1:26:42 I've never I've not come because maybe I
1:26:44 don't know Joseph or abdulrahman has
1:26:46 come across anything in academic
1:26:48 literature that uses this as a serious
1:26:51 argument
1:26:56 see silence is consent he's saying no
1:27:01 uh yeah so the um next question is
1:27:04 argument from Free Will so contains it
1:27:07 let's just stop you there but so there's
1:27:09 quite a few people waiting you've
1:27:11 already asked a few questions already so
1:27:12 we're going to leave it there with you
1:27:13 uh
1:27:15 um maybe next time we have one you can
1:27:16 jump on and ask again or alternatively
1:27:18 if you want to talk about these things
1:27:19 you can book a meeting with the
1:27:20 lighthouse project so if you go to say
1:27:23 this is your dog forward slash
1:27:24 Lighthouse
1:27:25 um you can we can discuss this in more
1:27:28 detail but it's just so that we can get
1:27:29 through everyone
1:27:30 foreign
1:27:35 rookie pilot you're next are you ready
1:27:37 okay he said he's free
1:27:42 all right come on can you guys hear me
1:27:44 yes you can hear me
1:27:47 I'm okay how are you guys
1:27:50 very well
1:27:52 for the stream I love watching your
1:27:54 stream I think uh it's very useful to
1:27:58 have uh these kind of more philosophical
1:28:00 streams
1:28:01 um I hope he's not gonna be too boring
1:28:03 for the audience but I came across um
1:28:06 a few months ago I came across this uh
1:28:08 YouTube channel I think Majesty of
1:28:10 reason and another one Parker's pences
1:28:13 or something and they were discussing uh
1:28:16 Joe Schmidt's paper to do with uh the
1:28:19 fruitful death of my little collapse
1:28:21 arguments and what he was saying was
1:28:24 well you know initially
1:28:26 quite clever he was saying that modal
1:28:29 collapse arguments against
1:28:31 um the kind of uh
1:28:34 um what was it called uh
1:28:36 classical season
1:28:39 um usually all fail because for example
1:28:42 I'm just going to read from his paper I
1:28:45 think most of them go like something
1:28:46 like the first this is necessarily one
1:28:50 and then the second premise is God is
1:28:53 identical to God's Act of Creation and
1:28:56 then necessarily God's acts of creation
1:28:58 exists
1:29:01 there's noise in the background oh sorry
1:29:04 you're interfering with the the
1:29:05 microphone when you I think you're
1:29:07 moving about maybe it's rubbing oh yeah
1:29:09 sorry is it better now yeah yeah it's
1:29:11 fine we can hear you it's just when
1:29:13 you're moving and the microphone it's
1:29:16 there's a scratchy noise that sort of
1:29:18 thing I'll stop moving sorry no sorry so
1:29:22 go on ask again yeah so what they're
1:29:24 saying I think the quite is kind of I
1:29:26 know there's lots of model collapse
1:29:27 arguments so I'm no expert to this
1:29:29 really but um uh so for example one one
1:29:34 that is in his paper that is one of the
1:29:36 mobile collapse arguments I guess is
1:29:39 um necessarily God exists and then God
1:29:42 is identical to God's Act of Creation
1:29:44 and then necessarily God's acts of
1:29:46 creation exists so I think what what the
1:29:47 modal corrupts arguments are saying is
1:29:49 that uh then creation necessarily exists
1:29:51 it's not contingent it's necessary
1:29:53 because
1:29:54 uh it collapses all the way through
1:29:56 because uh it's all necessary and I
1:29:59 think Joe is trying to argue
1:30:01 um I can't recommend from wrong here
1:30:02 because it could get have it wrong I
1:30:04 think he's trying to argue that these
1:30:06 modal collapse arguments fail because uh
1:30:10 there's a get out cause and that is to
1:30:12 say that God's God creates uh
1:30:15 indeterminate through into
1:30:16 indeterminately
1:30:19 and I think he's correct in that on that
1:30:22 on that point he's correct God does
1:30:24 create indeterminately but the problem
1:30:26 is then he attacks uh he attacks natural
1:30:29 causation by saying well the
1:30:32 indeterminism means like Randomness so
1:30:34 indetermining as it means God has no
1:30:37 control over what he creates and I think
1:30:39 he's failed to to realize a very simple
1:30:42 point there and that is that uh
1:30:45 actually actually in determinism can
1:30:47 also mean
1:30:49 um it can also have in the determinism
1:30:52 uh from uh from free willed beings it's
1:30:56 not only Randomness Randomness is not
1:30:58 the only explanation for
1:30:59 independentalism so I I was just curious
1:31:02 what your opinion on that is because I
1:31:04 think he's failed tonight is a very
1:31:06 simple uh problem
1:31:10 sorry what are you referencing is that
1:31:12 is it a video paper what exactly it's a
1:31:15 paper but they've also the video so it's
1:31:17 Joe it's Joe Schmidt and I think he's
1:31:20 he's growing up his favorite student or
1:31:23 something I think yeah it's a little
1:31:25 thing is very clever
1:31:27 um so he's he's done a paper and he's
1:31:30 also been he's also got his own channel
1:31:32 Majesty of reason and he's awesome I
1:31:35 really like him with paper I like it I
1:31:37 like it but I like it in particular yeah
1:31:40 but I think so he's kind of tried to
1:31:42 backstab these and essentially I don't
1:31:44 know what brother what was
1:31:46 fruitful death of modal collapse
1:31:49 arguments
1:31:51 yeah but that's not a complete
1:31:53 um
1:31:54 that's that's not a complete like
1:31:57 presentation of what his argument is um
1:31:59 because uh one of the consequences of
1:32:03 saying that indeterminacy can get you
1:32:04 out of mortal collapse
1:32:06 is uh eventually he moves on to what I
1:32:10 think is a more serious problem which is
1:32:12 the intentional collapse argument did
1:32:13 you read all the way through or
1:32:16 uh I read all the way through the paper
1:32:18 but I think well maybe I need to read
1:32:21 you more carefully because I I thought
1:32:23 that uh the flaw in his logic was that
1:32:26 uh he is he Associates in determinism he
1:32:30 he uh what's the word
1:32:33 uh he implies that indeterminism means
1:32:36 Randomness and lack of control so the
1:32:38 god that has no uh has no control over
1:32:42 walking breaks
1:32:44 that's not that's not the strongest
1:32:46 objection to also think of it this way
1:32:48 so um think of the ACT being
1:32:51 indeterminate uh what that would mean is
1:32:53 that you'd have a different world where
1:32:55 there's like let's say a different act
1:32:57 that non-deterministically follows from
1:33:00 God now um if you could tell me that
1:33:02 like on classical theism would anything
1:33:05 about God be different in that other
1:33:07 world
1:33:11 um I'm not sure
1:33:14 I see this is where you're going to get
1:33:15 the problem of like intentional collapse
1:33:18 because there's nothing within God
1:33:20 that would uh
1:33:23 basically account for the difference in
1:33:27 uh creation from one world to another so
1:33:30 I mean you have this complete
1:33:33 disconnectedness between this is on
1:33:35 classical theism which is
1:33:37 uh basically like that on Divine
1:33:39 Simplicity or certain models of divine
1:33:40 Simplicity which um I mean I mean uh uh
1:33:45 I wouldn't want to attack it like in
1:33:47 defense of atheism or something I mean
1:33:50 if if you hold Divine Simplicity uh uh
1:33:53 uh um that's definitely better league
1:33:56 and atheist from from my perspective but
1:33:58 then what I'm saying is the if you look
1:34:01 at the nature of the critique I think uh
1:34:04 the um the fruitful death the reason
1:34:07 that death is fruitful is because is
1:34:09 because of the that
1:34:12 consequence which is
1:34:15 I think a more serious problem where you
1:34:17 have nothing within God no intention no
1:34:21 act that's upsets in him nothing
1:34:23 whatsoever that creates a link between
1:34:26 him and creation so that it would make
1:34:29 him like he is the creator of the world
1:34:32 in some intelligible sense that you know
1:34:34 we can relate to from our experience so
1:34:36 that's that's that's the issue I think
1:34:38 um yeah
1:34:41 I don't think rookie Pilots arguing for
1:34:45 uh classical theism are you Rocky pilot
1:34:48 no no that's right yeah sorry I I think
1:34:51 oh you're you're criticizing the content
1:34:53 consequence of Joe Smith's attempted
1:34:57 argument which is basically saying that
1:34:59 well there's this there's this thing
1:35:01 that just randomly creates universes
1:35:05 there's a necessary thing that just
1:35:06 randomly creates universes you're not
1:35:08 gonna you're not going to apply any free
1:35:11 will or agency to that it can just be a
1:35:15 random necessary thing that spawns
1:35:17 universes is that right that's right um
1:35:20 yeah yeah I forgot to mention obviously
1:35:23 I don't subscribe to to classical season
1:35:25 and I don't think Muslims have that
1:35:28 particular view no we don't yeah anyway
1:35:32 but my issue was you know some do just
1:35:35 to be clear right so the ones who do it
1:35:38 yeah okay
1:35:41 um I guess uh yeah so my problem was
1:35:43 with this paper is that fair enough
1:35:45 you're you're out of the he mainly goes
1:35:48 after classical season for the purpose
1:35:50 of the paper but somewhere I think near
1:35:51 the bottom he does mention that his uh
1:35:54 argument can apply to other types he's
1:35:58 kind of insinuating that his argument is
1:36:00 going to be problematic for most types
1:36:03 of theism and my problem with this
1:36:05 argument is if I can try and reclassify
1:36:07 rephrase it is that
1:36:10 uh I think I actually like your examples
1:36:12 from some previous streams where he's
1:36:14 saying you know I can I've got a kind of
1:36:16 Pepsi in front of me and I've got a kind
1:36:18 of Coke in front of me and uh you know a
1:36:21 free real being
1:36:23 makes the choice but that choice doesn't
1:36:26 necessarily have an explanation so it's
1:36:28 not it's not a random event the Free
1:36:30 Will being doesn't randomly choose Coke
1:36:32 or Pepsi uh the Free Will being chooses
1:36:35 through Free Will and some intention but
1:36:38 that intention doesn't doesn't
1:36:40 necessarily have a have a
1:36:43 uh what's the word it's not
1:36:45 necessitating it's not necessary so you
1:36:49 can you could even label it in
1:36:51 deterministic it's an indeterministic
1:36:53 event because you can't determine what
1:36:55 caused that Free Will being to choose a
1:36:57 cocoa or Pepsi but it doesn't mean it's
1:36:59 non-intentional so that's I think that's
1:37:00 where Joe seems to conflate the things
1:37:02 that non-intentional I mean um
1:37:06 indeterminate does not not necessarily
1:37:08 exclude
1:37:09 intentionality you can have a
1:37:11 non-determinate event or choice or an
1:37:14 act but that doesn't mean that that act
1:37:16 was uh was not intentional
1:37:22 yeah
1:37:24 um of course so this is a discussion
1:37:25 about Free Will you're right I'm sorry
1:37:27 yeah somewhere else but yeah I mean
1:37:29 that's going to be
1:37:30 um one of like the uh um one of the
1:37:34 common critiques of of uh libertarian
1:37:37 view of Free Will and uh there can be a
1:37:40 lot of back and forth there I don't
1:37:41 think it
1:37:42 um it means it's random
1:37:44 um and not all um and not all the
1:37:48 theists I mean they're all Muslims I
1:37:50 think the majority of Orthodox Muslims
1:37:52 don't uh hold to libertarian
1:37:56 a free will that's a different
1:37:57 discussion I mean maybe and and it also
1:37:59 relates to you know God's acts versus
1:38:01 human acts and stuff like that but is it
1:38:05 necessarily random no I mean I mean um I
1:38:08 I don't think so I think the critique
1:38:10 can be made but then
1:38:12 um if you look at uh there are many
1:38:15 accounts of of libertarian Free Will out
1:38:18 there uh um and even like compatibilism
1:38:21 that uh
1:38:23 um lay it out in different ways and
1:38:27 um they don't all just see random like
1:38:28 Randomness to me like like random points
1:38:32 and fluctuations or something no I don't
1:38:33 think that's right
1:38:35 um uh I think uh it's a
1:38:41 it's it's it's it's it's not a bad
1:38:43 objection in the sense that you can have
1:38:45 a discussion about it but I think it
1:38:47 ultimately doesn't like it's it's it's
1:38:49 ultimately false
1:38:51 sorry what's ultimately false I'm going
1:38:54 to follow that the claim the claim that
1:38:57 it necessarily uh that the libertarian
1:38:59 choices are uh random
1:39:04 yeah that's right so that's so that's my
1:39:06 problem with Joe's uh we Joe's paper and
1:39:09 and the discussion you had uh online is
1:39:11 that they seem to he and his friends
1:39:14 seem to uh suggest that essentially they
1:39:18 don't yeah so you're absolutely right
1:39:19 the actual point of his paper which he
1:39:22 doesn't mention anyway the the the
1:39:24 contention in this paper actually leads
1:39:26 to a discussion of what is Free Will
1:39:28 essentially that's because he's saying
1:39:29 uh choices these choices can be uh
1:39:32 indeterminate to random but essentially
1:39:34 these are choices of Free Will beings so
1:39:36 essentially the whole the whole
1:39:37 discussion and the whole collapse of his
1:39:40 whole uh attack of modal attack modal
1:39:43 collapse arguments is actually a
1:39:45 discussion about free will but he
1:39:47 doesn't really explore that so it's a
1:39:50 bit of a
1:39:51 to me it's a bit of a biased paper it's
1:39:53 trying to say yeah I've kind of
1:39:56 destroyed mobile collapse arguments but
1:39:58 have come up with these new arguments
1:39:59 which destroys theism but actually his
1:40:01 new argument is not
1:40:03 a clear-cut argument because he's
1:40:05 failing to talk about that
1:40:08 the indeterminism is not necessarily the
1:40:11 same as Randomness you can have
1:40:12 indeterminate events which are due to
1:40:15 Free Will beings which can be
1:40:16 intentional which is not random and in
1:40:18 fact you know as Muslims We Believe
1:40:20 Randomness doesn't even exist at all so
1:40:22 so there's a whole different thing yeah
1:40:24 I I agree with Mercy
1:40:27 good
1:40:28 so yeah so you know I just wanted to get
1:40:30 a view on that paper and uh yeah I hope
1:40:34 you guys discuss it at some time at some
1:40:36 point yeah I wanted to read this one out
1:40:38 as well by the way I know I think yeah
1:40:40 just if you put it up on the Jamie
1:40:42 Turner mentioned he goes I'd say that
1:40:43 Muslims generally uh uphold neoclassical
1:40:47 theism I take that to be a variation on
1:40:50 classical theism or something like a
1:40:53 species of classical theism so in that
1:40:56 sense Muslims do generally uphold
1:40:57 classical theism
1:40:59 anybody wants to address that one
1:41:04 um
1:41:05 yeah that's I mean I don't think that's
1:41:07 wrong I I've uh um just would have
1:41:12 reservations against like using that
1:41:14 terminology because it's like at least
1:41:16 like in Internet Circle It's associated
1:41:18 with a very specific type of theism
1:41:21 uh but yeah I mean uh I've seen the
1:41:24 discussions about you know uh
1:41:26 classicalism and and you know the the
1:41:29 uh what it does or doesn't apply to and
1:41:32 Muslims aren't necessarily non-classical
1:41:34 theists and I think there's a bit of a
1:41:36 blurry line that's drawn there yeah the
1:41:38 word in as well can be a bit misleading
1:41:40 to people and not too clued up with all
1:41:42 the terminology and uh it might make it
1:41:45 sound like with some sort of
1:41:46 revolutionists
1:41:48 classical so
1:41:52 um I think that's another one of the
1:41:54 problems with these terms sometimes as
1:41:56 well but um I'm gonna have to run I've
1:41:58 already stayed
1:42:00 41 minutes 42 minutes longer than uh
1:42:04 I was supposed to
1:42:05 um
1:42:10 yeah I'm gonna go guys for for your
1:42:13 answer and I just wanted to do that
1:42:15 little rant about the paper anyway yeah
1:42:17 I don't know it was a nice little
1:42:19 discussion I'm sorry that was my fault
1:42:21 though because you know I'm a bit
1:42:23 Limited in listening so
1:42:26 no no it's fine
1:42:36 so uh yeah I'm Gonna Leave You guys
1:42:40 um who's next on the list
1:42:42 uh do I just follow from left to right
1:42:45 so yeah so well said is
1:42:49 what was he I've said it so he had to
1:42:51 leave to try to come back on to put his
1:42:53 camera on but his camera's not working
1:42:54 all right so device not connected him
1:42:57 yeah I can't add him anyway see no but
1:43:01 he's after I'm trying to one sec I did
1:43:04 comment and people kept asking and I
1:43:06 listed it so he's either
1:43:10 after
1:43:12 um o m n m
1:43:14 and before lemonade or after eliminating
1:43:16 before Carlos all right okay so it's one
1:43:19 of them is is gone now so I can't yeah
1:43:23 he's probably gonna come back
1:43:25 um
1:43:28 but yeah at the moment the way it is
1:43:31 it's in that order but there's also a
1:43:32 question that someone wants addressing
1:43:37 um
1:43:37 and I said we would try to answer it so
1:43:40 I'm just going to pull it up
1:43:42 before I leave because I said There It
1:43:44 Is
1:43:45 uh
1:43:49 because I did promise the brother that
1:43:51 we would try to answer it
1:44:00 ah it's too many letters how do I cut
1:44:04 this down I cut it into two
1:44:09 right so yeah so I've just put it in the
1:44:11 comments
1:44:12 you can pull them up one after the other
1:44:14 so that and then whatever follows after
1:44:16 it so I wanted to ask a question about
1:44:18 how contingency arguments applies to
1:44:19 Allah and necessary being cannot have
1:44:22 any attribute which is contingent but
1:44:24 Allah is man
1:44:26 which is not necessary that should be as
1:44:29 God could have been otherwise like he
1:44:31 could have been simply fair just and not
1:44:33 just man
1:44:35 but I'm not gonna have time to get into
1:44:38 that with you guys
1:44:40 run into that one
1:44:42 uh uh yeah I'm gonna say salaam before
1:44:45 you start answering
1:44:47 I'll give you a call this week as well
1:44:49 because we need to talk
1:44:51 inshallah
1:44:56 are you admin
1:44:58 I'm admin yeah bring people on and kick
1:45:01 them off from that I think so yeah
1:45:03 all right yeah yeah I can do yeah
1:45:10 the question is uh about the fact that
1:45:15 our Rahman
1:45:16 is a contingent property or is it
1:45:19 continued property and therefore
1:45:21 you know aren't we
1:45:23 establishing for the necessary being
1:45:25 certain
1:45:27 attributes which are contingent
1:45:29 if we accept the idea that AR Rahman is
1:45:32 a contingent
1:45:33 attribute
1:45:36 is this uh question came in in the
1:45:40 comments or something or yeah I think he
1:45:42 was in the private chat uh but the guy
1:45:44 had to leave but I used to answer the
1:45:46 question
1:45:48 okay I mean
1:45:50 um I I don't know so yeah so it's a
1:45:53 contingent property in the sense that um
1:45:58 this is a very
1:46:00 uh like I can answer it many different
1:46:03 ways but uh so so you could say that God
1:46:05 has contingent properties if
1:46:08 you have a specific understanding of
1:46:10 contingency like the right in the right
1:46:13 sense of contingency
1:46:15 meaning that for example if it's in uh
1:46:18 if it's a relational attribute uh uh God
1:46:22 is the creator of Abdul Rahman for
1:46:24 example right so he he's he he's the
1:46:28 creator of me but I'm I'm not necessary
1:46:33 so this is act of creating me necessary
1:46:36 um in in a certain sense so in this
1:46:39 specific like keto uh
1:46:42 a modal context
1:46:45 uh maybe it can be like you know
1:46:47 metaphysical necessity it's not
1:46:49 metaphysically necessary for me to exist
1:46:51 so the ACT wouldn't be beneficially
1:46:54 necessary but then what does that have
1:46:55 to do like
1:46:56 like what's the issue there I mean was
1:46:58 there a question was there like a a
1:47:00 problem
1:47:02 and he was trying to understand I think
1:47:04 yeah so I think you're going into a bit
1:47:06 more deeper so he's basically saying
1:47:07 that you have Allah
1:47:12 but Allah could not could have been
1:47:15 other than it could have been just fair
1:47:18 or just that was this question so is
1:47:21 this
1:47:23 in his view he sees that as contingent
1:47:27 yeah but what's the problem like he has
1:47:30 to like okay so I see you that's okay
1:47:32 how can a necessary being be contingent
1:47:35 have contingent properties oh no but
1:47:37 right that would be jumping from like a
1:47:39 contingent property to a contingent
1:47:41 being right yeah so and again it just
1:47:44 really depends on what he means by
1:47:45 contingent so if I'd ask the person
1:47:47 questions like what do you mean when you
1:47:49 say that he could have been like you
1:47:52 know otherwise in the sense like not
1:47:54 merciful for example then he'd have to
1:47:57 elaborate uh and maybe there's
1:47:59 problematic ways of saying that there's
1:48:01 non-problematic ways of saying that if
1:48:03 he's going to say that in a way that
1:48:05 would
1:48:06 um render god
1:48:07 um
1:48:08 uh contingent in the sense that
1:48:11 God's essential attributes you know
1:48:14 uh could have been different or no
1:48:16 that's impossible
1:48:18 but if there's something that is um
1:48:21 maybe dispositional as in like you know
1:48:24 a tendency to behave in a particular way
1:48:27 in a particular situation or something
1:48:30 that is relational
1:48:32 and you see that didn't have to be like
1:48:35 that because God could have chosen not
1:48:37 to create the situation that would bring
1:48:39 about such and such
1:48:41 then then where's the issue it's just
1:48:43 not a problem
1:48:44 unless there's like something further to
1:48:46 say in the argument
1:48:48 yeah so I this this is how I'd probably
1:48:52 look at it uh of the harmony is that
1:48:55 uh firstly is I think even Tami holds a
1:48:59 position that Allah those attributes
1:49:02 uh so long as they do not contradict his
1:49:06 nature
1:49:07 so it's necessary for Allah to have all
1:49:10 the attributes so long as it doesn't
1:49:13 negate his uh nature is that correct am
1:49:16 I
1:49:19 sorry you're saying that humanitariance
1:49:21 position is that whatever is possible
1:49:24 for Allah is necessary for Allah yeah so
1:49:26 yeah as in all possible Perfections are
1:49:31 you know necessary
1:49:33 necessarily like predicable of Allah
1:49:35 because so he's not an arbitrary limit
1:49:37 basically you don't have an arbitrary
1:49:39 limit that Allah had could have this
1:49:42 attribute doesn't have the attribute he
1:49:44 would have the attribute exactly he
1:49:47 wouldn't have the attribute is if it
1:49:49 contradicts his nature
1:49:51 yes because if it because if it's an
1:49:53 attribute of perfection
1:49:55 and he only like uh possibly has it
1:50:01 or contingently has it then he would
1:50:05 depend he would be dependent on another
1:50:08 for attaining a perfectionist
1:50:11 so so if it's an attribute of perfection
1:50:13 then God necessarily has it
1:50:16 there's no way around that yeah
1:50:18 yeah so in that situation then you would
1:50:22 uh you would say that
1:50:24 um Allah would have the attribute of
1:50:28 being
1:50:29 merciful Rahman
1:50:31 uh and that
1:50:34 um any of this this wouldn't this would
1:50:36 be if for others wanted not to have it
1:50:39 would require an explanation rather than
1:50:42 having it wouldn't necessarily require
1:50:43 an explanation because he's an essay
1:50:46 being he has all the all the attributes
1:50:47 there's no there's no arbitrariness to
1:50:50 the fact that he has only certain
1:50:52 attributes as opposed to other
1:50:53 attributes which he could have but he
1:50:55 doesn't have yeah
1:50:57 um the other thing is to maybe argue the
1:51:00 point which is say okay you know when we
1:51:02 talk about all those panels are being
1:51:04 and we're informed by this in the text
1:51:06 why assume that our contingent
1:51:09 attributes in and of themselves anyway
1:51:11 why can't they just be it's we are being
1:51:14 informed by the text
1:51:17 further than the mind can maybe conclude
1:51:20 upon either that it is necessary to be a
1:51:23 Rahman what do you think to the answer
1:51:25 of man
1:51:27 yeah yeah I mean it is necessary of
1:51:29 course and uh and there's there's
1:51:32 questions about the nature of that
1:51:33 necessity so I see a question in the
1:51:35 chat here I don't know if it is the same
1:51:37 brother who asked the question but he's
1:51:38 saying if those properties are necessary
1:51:41 why can't we show that Mercy is
1:51:43 logically entailed by being a necessary
1:51:45 being
1:51:47 um the the the mistake is to assume
1:51:52 that
1:51:53 any metaphysical necessity must be
1:51:56 rationally accessible by you or me given
1:52:00 a certain set of premises it's
1:52:03 why like it doesn't you have you have
1:52:06 access to enough in terms of what
1:52:10 necessarily must be said about God uh
1:52:13 maybe some things which are true about
1:52:16 God you don't have access to but they
1:52:18 necessarily apply to God they
1:52:21 necessarily follow from his nature
1:52:23 um why do you have to derive that from
1:52:26 your conception of a necessary being
1:52:28 like in in some kind of like
1:52:31 mathematical
1:52:32 away or something I'm I don't see why
1:52:35 why we need that if if that's what you
1:52:39 meant
1:52:40 yeah yeah cool okay let's go to our
1:52:44 that's I hope that's dealt with that
1:52:46 question we've got loads of people in
1:52:48 the back yeah so we do apologize that
1:52:51 you know if we can't get to everybody
1:52:53 because we have been going on for almost
1:52:54 two hours now
1:52:56 um you know we'll try our best to try
1:52:58 and answer everybody's questions or
1:53:01 concerns uh or contentions yeah so but
1:53:04 you know
1:53:05 um just be aware that if you have just
1:53:07 recently joined uh you are one of about
1:53:11 seven people in the queue yeah okay uh o
1:53:16 m n m
1:53:19 um
1:53:21 yeah
1:53:24 it's my initials
1:53:27 okay
1:53:29 guys uh first of all I just want to say
1:53:31 I really enjoy your guys's content I
1:53:34 found you guys by accident from
1:53:35 Hampshire's Den so you know like I was
1:53:38 very
1:53:39 you know it was very nice to find you
1:53:42 guys you have very like interesting
1:53:43 stuff and topics you talk about and I
1:53:45 really enjoy listening to you guys but
1:53:47 before I asked my main question I just
1:53:50 have a quick question because you know
1:53:51 like Ahmed Hadith and stuff you know I
1:53:53 want to know a little bit about the guys
1:53:55 I learned from
1:53:57 you know so like I just wanna have like
1:53:59 a general understanding what's your
1:54:01 guys's like educational backgrounds when
1:54:03 it comes to like Islam specifically and
1:54:05 like Philosophy for example as well
1:54:09 yes so I think uh Abdul Rahman went to
1:54:12 an Islamic University
1:54:15 and he translates uh Yusuf obviously he
1:54:19 does uh he did philosophy as a degree
1:54:21 and he does uh various private studying
1:54:25 myself I've not done philosophy as a
1:54:27 degree but I've done various readings on
1:54:28 the subject and also private studying
1:54:31 Islamic sciences and various studies
1:54:33 like animal Hadith as well yeah things
1:54:36 like that and uh same thing with Jacob
1:54:39 he's also got a Philosophy degree as
1:54:41 well so yeah
1:54:43 okay and just another question about you
1:54:46 Sharif in particular because I wasn't
1:54:47 able to find like a pre do you have any
1:54:49 personal like Channel or something for
1:54:51 you no no I don't have a personal
1:54:53 channel it's hard enough keeping doing
1:54:55 this one so I can't be doing another
1:54:58 personal Channel be too much man
1:55:00 okay so there's no personality because
1:55:02 I've seen I I I looked you up uh like an
1:55:05 hour or so ago on YouTube I found like a
1:55:07 couple like a third party lectures
1:55:09 uploaded by I don't know honestly like
1:55:12 there's a channel called together for
1:55:13 something I'm not sure if I wasn't sure
1:55:14 yeah there's there's very what was
1:55:17 interesting I'll give you maybe a brief
1:55:19 background so uh many many go
1:55:23 um the weren't basically any Muslims
1:55:25 that used to debate atheists so in 2004
1:55:29 around about that time I got invited to
1:55:31 do a debate against Nathan's and that
1:55:33 was the first time particularly in in
1:55:35 Britain in the UK and I think probably
1:55:37 sort of the western sort of I'm not
1:55:40 saying first time ever but I'm saying
1:55:41 first time like in the sort of 2000s
1:55:43 onwards where we had Muslims debating
1:55:47 atheists so I came onto that scene in
1:55:49 that situation uh and uh was one of the
1:55:53 first to do these things and then after
1:55:54 that alhamdulillah inspired many
1:55:56 brothers like uh Hamza sources Abdullah
1:55:59 andalusi and others who have taken it to
1:56:01 the next level now we can be more
1:56:03 prominent uh in terms of this so you
1:56:06 know that's sort of the part of the
1:56:07 background uh of this and I know
1:56:10 alhamdulillah these brothers as well
1:56:11 Hamza and Abdullah and others uh
1:56:14 involved in the dower so
1:56:17 um for many many years in fact
1:56:19 um so yeah so that's generally the
1:56:21 background and some of the videos I
1:56:23 never really uploaded so I've actually
1:56:25 done many debates over you know a good
1:56:28 10 15 years with various atheists or
1:56:32 secularists on various topics but I
1:56:35 never had a camera of my own I always
1:56:37 used to let other people upload it and
1:56:40 Hamza sources I remember years ago he
1:56:42 said to me he said look he says you need
1:56:44 to get your own camera
1:56:46 and your own mic and not rely upon other
1:56:49 brothers to upload because if you do
1:56:51 that you'll miss all your debates so uh
1:56:54 you know alhamdulillah not had many uh
1:56:57 debates uploaded uh you know I've been
1:57:00 more but you know other brothers have
1:57:02 had their debates uploaded so it's all
1:57:04 good hamzilla
1:57:05 oh that's nice and uh also for
1:57:07 addressment does he have a personal
1:57:09 Channel where he uploads like other
1:57:10 stuff as well or is this just it through
1:57:12 Vegas or whatever
1:57:16 at the moment
1:57:19 okay and then
1:57:24 and then like let's say adaptation or
1:57:27 like some form of evolution like in
1:57:28 Islam
1:57:29 uh which is something that I like I
1:57:31 would like some more for example to
1:57:33 address like specific because I know you
1:57:34 guys had them on a few times uh I just
1:57:37 want to make sure like the support is
1:57:38 someone doing any kind of like formal
1:57:40 education as well on like biology and
1:57:42 evolution and stuff or not yeah I think
1:57:45 he's done like a Masters or in
1:57:48 philosophy of science and potentially
1:57:51 biology and I think he's doing a PhD as
1:57:53 well at the moment
1:57:55 um I don't know in terms of specifically
1:57:58 biology because I'd have to ask him to
1:58:01 be honest
1:58:02 yeah okay so my question is I think I'm
1:58:05 not exactly sure because you know I'm uh
1:58:07 I'm a Lee man let's see but I think in
1:58:10 this like in the Islamic Paradigm is
1:58:12 there such a I think it's a
1:58:14 there has been for example a decrease in
1:58:17 size and lifespan in human beings is
1:58:20 that uh accurate to say
1:58:23 uh I don't I don't think you can say
1:58:26 that necessarily I know from an Islamic
1:58:28 perspective uh there's there's obviously
1:58:31 uh the verses about how he spent 950
1:58:37 years doing the tower yeah and there's a
1:58:40 Hadith about how Adam Al Islam was 60
1:58:42 cubits in size and then when he uh and
1:58:47 then
1:58:48 you know he then decreased in size and
1:58:51 human beings have been decreasing ever
1:58:52 since I don't know if you come across
1:58:54 that because I had easier but there's
1:58:56 various explanations of that particular
1:58:58 Hadith yeah so some say that the
1:59:01 decrease in size of imperfection
1:59:04 and into the fact that that imperfection
1:59:06 the fact that you're not at that perfect
1:59:09 height and Status
1:59:11 continues today not that you're
1:59:14 decreasing in height continues are you
1:59:17 getting shorter and shorter and shorter
1:59:19 but it's the fact that that imperfection
1:59:21 so there's a different shirt of that and
1:59:24 one of the shutter as well is the fact
1:59:25 that 60 cubits of Adam leisland which is
1:59:28 obviously you know in very very tall uh
1:59:31 was in Jannah yeah so it wasn't up on
1:59:34 Earth yeah upon and so in in Us in
1:59:38 another similar narration it talks about
1:59:40 how when human beings go back to gender
1:59:42 Believers go back to gender they'll re
1:59:44 will become that height again because
1:59:47 that's our natural height our natural
1:59:49 you know perfect State uh when we're in
1:59:52 Jannah to be that size yeah so instead
1:59:55 of referring to that and I think that's
1:59:57 probably the best explanation for it
2:00:00 all right and uh just another quick
2:00:02 question
2:00:03 um when it comes it's just a general
2:00:06 question about like let's say atheists
2:00:07 oh well there's like you know the
2:00:10 position where like you're a determinist
2:00:11 and hard determinism and whatever so my
2:00:14 question is because I don't know much
2:00:15 about this it's just a general question
2:00:17 you might have answered this before or
2:00:19 it's maybe like a common answer for this
2:00:21 question but I'm asking is is it
2:00:23 possible to be a determinist and be an
2:00:25 atheist like how how would you explain
2:00:27 the determinism you see like what what's
2:00:30 their Bedrock okay something
2:00:33 has to have determined everything or do
2:00:36 they believe there was a random event at
2:00:38 the beginning and then everything
2:00:40 from that is the thing is determined
2:00:42 because of that first random event like
2:00:44 is it possible to intellectually justify
2:00:47 uh atheism while still being a
2:00:50 determinist
2:00:53 uh yeah so yeah so there's different
2:00:55 positions that determinants may take so
2:00:57 for example determinist might say yeah
2:00:59 one random event at the beginning and
2:01:02 then everything else was deterministic
2:01:04 and or they may say it's an infinite
2:01:06 regress so there's just every event is
2:01:09 explained to a prior event which is
2:01:10 explained by a prior event and it just
2:01:12 goes on forever there's no beginning in
2:01:14 that chain
2:01:20 you think as uh like impossible let's
2:01:23 say and as well the fact that how is it
2:01:25 possible that a a random event
2:01:29 then begets like uh determined and
2:01:33 uh non-random sequence of events like
2:01:36 this so I'm saying is there any like is
2:01:38 there any explanation other than having
2:01:40 these two uh let's say impossible
2:01:43 justifications other than saying it's
2:01:45 either a random event or an infinite
2:01:46 regress which we think both of them are
2:01:48 impossible to begin with is there any
2:01:50 other kind of information they have
2:01:53 yeah so when we talk about infinite
2:01:55 regress there's two types where where
2:01:57 people might talk about one is causal
2:01:59 phenotism so a series of causes that has
2:02:02 a beginning and there's another one
2:02:04 which is basically an actual infinite
2:02:06 yeah so so you could be somebody who
2:02:09 believes that a series of causes in the
2:02:13 beginning
2:02:14 yeah a series of efficient causes needs
2:02:17 to have a beginning but you could also
2:02:18 believe in an actual infinite of things
2:02:20 yeah so so I'm sure abdulrahman will you
2:02:24 know can potentially explain that more
2:02:25 in further detail or you could be a
2:02:27 person who says no I actually don't
2:02:29 believe it an infinite number of
2:02:32 discrete events could even exist in and
2:02:34 of itself yeah
2:02:36 thus by the by because at the end of the
2:02:38 day a series of causes has you know
2:02:41 generally is what people are arguing for
2:02:43 when they say it has to have a beginning
2:02:46 um in terms of uh are these the only two
2:02:49 options an indeterminate event that
2:02:52 occurred or a um infinite regress
2:02:57 um I suppose you could say that those
2:02:59 are probably the only two things that I
2:03:01 think are seriously taken there is like
2:03:04 a necessary Foundation
2:03:07 which doesn't have a mind but then
2:03:10 they'd have still a problem with saying
2:03:12 well how did this necessary thing
2:03:15 yeah create or why it is necessary do by
2:03:18 its own nature of Necessities but
2:03:20 necessarily created but then some people
2:03:22 who hold that view could still argue
2:03:25 well that's still an idea of will
2:03:27 and see or others would say well does
2:03:32 that make the university necessary as
2:03:34 well so then there's an issue regards to
2:03:36 that and so
2:03:39 um yeah I think those are probably two
2:03:40 free options that are open to atheists I
2:03:42 don't know if Abdul Rahman can think of
2:03:44 any other options
2:03:46 if abdulrahman can speak
2:03:55 yeah
2:03:57 I was just like a bit all over the place
2:04:01 I can speak but I'll need like a very
2:04:04 brief summary because I was also sort of
2:04:06 listening so yeah
2:04:08 so o-m-n-m he was basically asking the
2:04:12 question our name omnim was basically
2:04:14 asking the question is that what are the
2:04:16 options open for an atheist is it just
2:04:17 infinite regress or an indeterminate
2:04:20 Random Act
2:04:26 if you're a determinist and then you say
2:04:28 you either have an infinite regress or
2:04:32 uh a random event in the beginning but
2:04:35 everything else is determined so like
2:04:36 it's a special pleading case or whatever
2:04:38 yeah so I think both of these positions
2:04:40 are honestly irrational like I couldn't
2:04:43 um
2:04:43 like rush and then like stick to them
2:04:45 over theism so like do they have any
2:04:48 other like proper explanations or
2:04:50 something other than these two options
2:04:52 yeah if you so if you mean by options
2:04:56 um
2:04:56 options that are correct I don't think
2:04:59 they have any
2:05:00 yeah but but if you mean like um I mean
2:05:04 what uh might be consistent with a
2:05:07 position like determinism uh and
2:05:10 specifically atheistic determinism
2:05:11 because there's like theistic
2:05:12 determinism which is a different story
2:05:14 but
2:05:15 um
2:05:16 I don't think it neces it necessarily
2:05:18 Falls from determinism that uh an
2:05:22 atheist must say that there's an
2:05:24 infinite request unless I'm mistaken
2:05:25 because uh I mean that needs to be
2:05:28 combined with uh
2:05:30 a causal principle of some sort is going
2:05:33 to be related to like the the the the
2:05:35 metaphysics of time
2:05:37 um you know whether there could be like
2:05:39 an eternal state where
2:05:42 um I mean well things deterministically
2:05:44 following from that is going to be very
2:05:46 tricky uh it's like going to be similar
2:05:48 to the discussions we have about the
2:05:49 relationship of God in time right but uh
2:05:54 so so think of think of like uh RP's
2:05:58 position where he says there's uh
2:06:00 there's an initial State that's
2:06:01 necessary
2:06:04 uh
2:06:05 I I don't know if you could say that
2:06:08 everything
2:06:09 would deterministically follow from that
2:06:13 uh without giving any like qualifiers on
2:06:16 what kind of like um you know time
2:06:19 you're working with here uh but
2:06:22 generally speaking I mean I just I think
2:06:25 the options are many it's not they're
2:06:27 not going to be very different from
2:06:28 atheist options when you're just
2:06:30 examining the The Logical structure of
2:06:33 like you know cause effect and
2:06:35 Beginnings right but the the
2:06:38 um the deeper questions are the ones
2:06:41 that are going to determine you know the
2:06:43 falsity of their their position I think
2:06:46 so
2:06:47 um I don't think it's it's only about
2:06:49 like the determinism question
2:06:51 yeah I agree it's not just about the
2:06:54 determining question I think uh but I
2:06:56 think there are pretty much two general
2:06:58 options either you've got some sort of
2:07:01 infinite regressive causes
2:07:03 or you've got an indeterminate act
2:07:06 that's not mind-based I think I don't
2:07:10 know if there's any other potential
2:07:11 options as in like the the explanation
2:07:14 behind it you got like maybe some songs
2:07:17 or maybe maybe you're including within
2:07:18 the infinite regress like a cyclical
2:07:20 universe or something maybe that would
2:07:22 be yeah yeah I would include that yeah
2:07:23 yeah yeah yeah yeah
2:07:25 so yeah cycle would be on an infinite
2:07:28 chain which doesn't come back on itself
2:07:30 and then uh you've got an indeterminate
2:07:34 necessary being then you've got probably
2:07:35 an indeterminate contingent being
2:07:39 um I think those are I think I think
2:07:41 you're right I think yeah so I think
2:07:44 those are the the options and how many
2:07:47 if just to understand how the atheists
2:07:50 sort of argue against theism is what
2:07:52 they try to do is they try to say okay
2:07:54 you denied this particular premise uh
2:07:58 we're gonna demonstrate how your denial
2:08:01 of this premise or deny this particular
2:08:04 proposition is incorrect or is
2:08:06 unjustified it's not even incorrect
2:08:08 they're not going to say it's incorrect
2:08:09 they're just going to say you can't
2:08:10 justify why you would reject it so they
2:08:12 would try to say you can't justify why
2:08:15 you would reject a series of causes
2:08:17 uh it cannot go on forever white has to
2:08:21 have a beginning so that's their
2:08:22 argument there are they're never arguing
2:08:24 the the the only the the more complex
2:08:28 philosophical atheists they're not
2:08:30 arguing the fact that their position is
2:08:31 correct they're just simply trying to
2:08:33 argue that their position is possible
2:08:35 and you have no argument to negate them
2:08:38 yeah so that's generally how they
2:08:41 operate
2:08:42 all right I'm just I just have one small
2:08:45 comment before I leave uh are you guys
2:08:46 familiar with uh firas is it happen
2:08:49 yeah he's yeah okay so basically there's
2:08:52 this guy who came on uh one of your
2:08:55 shows I'm not exactly sure where I saw
2:08:57 when Hunter's done or whatever or maybe
2:08:59 it was on top he was saying something
2:09:01 ridiculous like you can't describe God
2:09:03 as one because when Allah says in the
2:09:05 front you know like he is one or
2:09:08 whatever and it's a ridiculous thing but
2:09:10 my point is for example
2:09:12 in one of his live streams because he
2:09:14 does many like amas on YouTube almost
2:09:17 every week and the answer is like
2:09:19 philosophical questions and he touched
2:09:21 on this topic about uh like objectivity
2:09:24 and stuff and so he said like for
2:09:25 example when Allah said
2:09:27 okay it's like it could be understood as
2:09:31 he is one like uh numerically he's not
2:09:34 like a trinity like what uh the guy was
2:09:36 saying on your podcast you can't
2:09:37 understand the number one but he said it
2:09:39 also means uh he is like God is
2:09:42 objective when he describes himself as
2:09:45 one it means he exists objectively
2:09:47 different to any other existence we have
2:09:51 that's like something that for us was
2:09:52 explaining in one of his podcasts like
2:09:55 you know if you have the concept of a
2:09:56 Divine knife he explained for example if
2:09:58 you have only one knife in the world
2:10:00 everything you would say about this
2:10:02 knife is objective and the same thing
2:10:04 about Allah for example when he says he
2:10:07 is saying he is objective in that sense
2:10:10 and everything else is subjective it's
2:10:13 like as a consequence of Allah's actions
2:10:15 something along those lines so I just
2:10:17 want to again
2:10:29 seriously
2:10:35 from Christianity when somebody has his
2:10:37 own Christianity and contradicts his own
2:10:39 tradition you've got to be thinking
2:10:41 miles a bit but yeah he was trying to
2:10:43 say that the idea of numbers is
2:10:45 something created and so therefore you
2:10:47 can't say that God is one because you're
2:10:49 saying God is some created thing yeah
2:10:52 but I think uh he said this on hamza's
2:10:55 Den as well and I think yeah yeah
2:10:58 he dealt with the point anyway but and
2:11:01 also here when he said it here I think
2:11:03 um Jake mentioned the discussion with
2:11:05 him just basically we don't accept that
2:11:07 premise of the argument yeah it's just
2:11:09 it's something it's very we don't accept
2:11:11 it in general doesn't make sense or you
2:11:12 can't describe god with a number yeah I
2:11:15 mean yeah
2:11:17 I wanted to point it yeah I just wanted
2:11:21 to like point out like this uh Topic in
2:11:23 particular further we spoke about that
2:11:25 he said like when he says Ahad it means
2:11:28 he exist like God exists uh objectively
2:11:31 in a way that is completely different
2:11:33 than anything else
2:11:35 around us for example let's see exists
2:11:37 he's anything that you need is this
2:11:39 unique yeah
2:11:41 it's an objective
2:11:43 existence there's nothing like it there
2:11:46 isn't a second or a third so
2:11:49 it's not like human beings we're like
2:11:51 there's like millions billions of us or
2:11:53 whatever and you know something along
2:11:54 those lines so if you guys are like
2:11:56 familiar with this like explanation or
2:11:58 something I don't know I just want to
2:11:59 bring it up maybe you guys you know
2:12:02 we'll have a look at that inshallah
2:12:04 thank you guys so much for having me I
2:12:06 enjoy your content very much so no
2:12:08 problem
2:12:09 take it bro
2:12:19 okay we got lemonade man
2:12:23 hello how are you doing in lemonade man
2:12:25 hey uh I found your podcast through uh
2:12:29 Khalid
2:12:31 oh Marshall I'm there that's good let me
2:12:33 know
2:12:36 I know I'm an idiot ex-muslim oh I do
2:12:39 okay then cool
2:12:41 yeah yeah
2:12:44 like I wanted to talk about the
2:12:47 existence of God and like continue the
2:12:49 argument and all that stuff
2:12:52 uh yeah so
2:12:54 we like I've already had a few
2:12:56 conversations with Khalil so like I just
2:12:59 want to talk about like stage two
2:13:01 contingency arguments
2:13:03 okay so what was the stage one
2:13:05 contingency argument do you agree with
2:13:07 uh I'm like I don't think there's any
2:13:10 way out of a necessary being like I'm
2:13:13 I'm certain there's a necessary being
2:13:14 but
2:13:17 yeah no no I understand but the reason
2:13:20 why I asked about stage one first is
2:13:22 because some of the points in stage two
2:13:24 hinges upon some acceptance of certain
2:13:27 premises to the argument that led you to
2:13:29 stage one as well so that's the reason
2:13:31 why I'm asking
2:13:32 uh well I I believe that everything in
2:13:35 this world is contingent and then
2:13:37 like everything that is contingent has
2:13:39 uh like has an outside explanation of
2:13:42 its existence and then the whole set
2:13:44 because if you take the universe it's a
2:13:46 whole set of contingent things so it has
2:13:48 to have an outside explanation
2:13:50 okay that makes sense right
2:13:53 yeah yeah yeah
2:13:54 so then so you would Yeah so basically
2:13:56 what you're saying is that things that
2:13:58 are how would you identify some things
2:14:00 contingent just out of Interest
2:14:02 uh yeah there's like I actually get
2:14:04 confused about that like because some
2:14:06 people uh use like conceptual
2:14:10 and they say like if you can
2:14:11 conceptually imagine
2:14:13 uh like if I have a shoe if I can
2:14:15 conceptually imagine a shooting like a
2:14:16 different way different properties then
2:14:18 it's contingent but some people they
2:14:20 don't use conceptual they say like
2:14:22 uh like through empiricism because
2:14:25 physical things we have you know
2:14:26 empirical observation that we can move
2:14:28 them around we can break them
2:14:30 so yeah I mean through both
2:14:33 I guess through both parts I agree that
2:14:36 where these things are contingent I mean
2:14:39 how would you how would you use the
2:14:41 argument
2:14:43 you're right there are two there are
2:14:45 different ways to understand uh
2:14:48 you know contingency but if we if we
2:14:50 accept you know even if you know we
2:14:54 don't go into if we accept this idea of
2:14:56 conceivability
2:14:58 yeah if you accept it yeah I'm not
2:15:01 saying just for the sake of the argument
2:15:02 I'm just saying if you accept it as a
2:15:05 position then I think we can then move
2:15:07 on to a discussion about stage two so if
2:15:10 something could potentially be another
2:15:11 way
2:15:13 and it requires an explanation as to why
2:15:17 it's one way as opposed to another way
2:15:19 uh then uh you know then we would say
2:15:23 that that thing is dependent yeah we
2:15:25 could we could argue it in that way yeah
2:15:27 some sort of physical thing that has a
2:15:30 defined shape or defined set of
2:15:32 parameters
2:15:33 I defined you know uh you know uh
2:15:38 attributes you know certain amount you
2:15:41 know not unlimited uh could be more
2:15:43 could be less than I think in that
2:15:46 situation then yeah we're gonna ask the
2:15:48 question what's it dependent upon
2:15:51 yeah
2:15:52 yeah
2:15:54 okay yeah so because of the this limits
2:15:57 thing like I even agree with this
2:15:59 arbitrary limits thing like if it has
2:16:01 power then it makes more sense that it
2:16:04 has unlimited power and all kind of
2:16:07 stuff
2:16:08 my only issue is like free will because
2:16:11 I feel like if the thing is like when I
2:16:14 when I think of a necessary being what
2:16:16 I'm thinking of is that this thing has
2:16:19 properties but like how do you explain
2:16:22 why it has this property like is it like
2:16:24 is it correct to say
2:16:26 for example if it has power then
2:16:29 is it correct to say that it has power
2:16:30 for like no reason at all
2:16:34 yeah but you're not saying when we're
2:16:36 saying that it has power you're not
2:16:38 saying it's for no reason at all you're
2:16:40 basically saying it's the nature of
2:16:42 something that's necessary
2:16:44 that it has to have power
2:16:46 because if it wasn't if it didn't have
2:16:48 power then by definition it wouldn't be
2:16:52 necessary it would be dependent because
2:16:54 then it would be dependent upon
2:16:55 something else to give it the ability to
2:16:59 cause contingent things
2:17:02 uh
2:17:03 uh I guess like power it it needs power
2:17:06 because we exist right like contingent
2:17:10 things exists and then yeah it needs
2:17:11 power but
2:17:13 does like does the existence of the
2:17:15 universe itself explain why it has power
2:17:19 like the way I'm thinking of it is like
2:17:21 if you if you imagine there's like a
2:17:23 let's say an eternal flame right yeah
2:17:27 that would mean there's an eternal fuel
2:17:31 right but it's a fuel explains the fire
2:17:35 but like is it correct to say that the
2:17:37 fire explains why the fuel exists in the
2:17:39 first place
2:17:42 yeah so what we're doing is when we're
2:17:45 coming to these rational arguments one
2:17:47 of the ways that we're doing it is we're
2:17:48 doing like some sort of abductive
2:17:50 process we're looking for a a best
2:17:53 explanation what explains contingent
2:17:55 reality in the best possible way yes
2:17:58 it's one angle to the argument yeah
2:18:00 there are obviously you can have
2:18:01 deductive arguments as well but we're
2:18:03 just going to use this from a point of
2:18:04 view of abductive arguments so we're
2:18:07 saying okay we've got these things which
2:18:09 are limited
2:18:10 dependent that can therefore contingent
2:18:13 the reason why they're continuous
2:18:15 because they conceivably could have been
2:18:17 another way yeah uh conceivability in
2:18:20 this sense we may limit it to
2:18:23 attributes and uh physicality and it
2:18:26 could be greater or smaller Etc yeah or
2:18:29 more powerful less powerful so if it's
2:18:31 got these set parameters then
2:18:34 what explanation well you and I agree
2:18:36 that the best explanations there has to
2:18:38 be something at least one thing that's
2:18:40 independent yeah
2:18:42 so that one thing that's independent
2:18:45 yeah is the explanation or another way
2:18:48 say is a Cause
2:18:50 of these limited dependent things yeah
2:18:54 yeah
2:18:55 so the fact that it's a cause of these
2:18:58 limited dependent things means
2:19:00 by implication it has to have the
2:19:04 ability to do so and the ability is sort
2:19:06 of synonymous to power
2:19:09 uh yeah
2:19:12 like no I agree that it the power is
2:19:15 necessary for the existence of
2:19:18 contingent things but like I don't
2:19:21 understand why it needs to have in the
2:19:23 first like why did it have it why did it
2:19:25 have power in the first place
2:19:27 yeah but lemonade is like uh if I can
2:19:31 maybe understand your question uh or
2:19:33 your contention I think what you're
2:19:35 trying to say is well why did we have to
2:19:38 have God in the first place
2:19:40 yeah
2:19:41 like for me like the way I think of it
2:19:44 is like even if God exists it for me it
2:19:46 doesn't like answer the question of why
2:19:49 there is something rather than nothing
2:19:50 it is for me like God is also something
2:19:52 well God or necessary being why does a
2:19:55 necessary being have to exist
2:20:03 have to exist yeah
2:20:06 yeah so this nestro being doesn't have
2:20:09 to have a mind or a will it's just
2:20:11 something that's Eternal why does
2:20:12 something have to be
2:20:13 Eternal have to exist yeah
2:20:16 yeah
2:20:17 so the point here is this is that we're
2:20:19 not asking the question we're not coming
2:20:20 to this conclusion because of
2:20:23 uh some sort of conceptual analysis of
2:20:27 does there have to be something
2:20:28 necessary from the point of view of a
2:20:31 necessary thing what we're saying is
2:20:32 from what we observe so what we observe
2:20:36 is limited contingent dependent things
2:20:39 so we need an explanation for that and
2:20:42 then that leads us to the conclusion
2:20:45 very independent being
2:20:47 so if we didn't have that evidence that
2:20:50 that evidence before us
2:20:53 of contingent things then we couldn't
2:20:55 necessarily use that argument we'd have
2:20:57 to use other arguments to come to the
2:20:59 conclusion of something that's eternal
2:21:02 in this context always say in a stage
2:21:04 one argument is we're just simply saying
2:21:06 from our observation of things around us
2:21:10 and our conceptual analysis we come to
2:21:14 the conclusion that there has to be at
2:21:16 least one thing that's independent
2:21:19 Eternal and that was the cause
2:21:21 ultimately the cause of limited
2:21:23 dependent things yeah
2:21:25 uh yeah yeah I I agree with that right
2:21:29 um so so the path the evidence for that
2:21:32 is contingent things and so in similarly
2:21:35 the evidence for power is contingent
2:21:38 things because the fact that contingent
2:21:40 things themselves don't have their own
2:21:42 power to make them so into existence
2:21:46 they need an explanation outside of
2:21:47 itself it means that there must be
2:21:49 something outside of itself that had the
2:21:51 power to bring itself into existence
2:21:53 yeah
2:21:55 yeah
2:21:56 so the question then becomes well is
2:21:58 that you sorry dominate
2:22:01 uh no and just you can finish then yeah
2:22:03 no I was going to say then is that power
2:22:05 arbitrary like does it have 99 Power
2:22:10 does it have 97 power or is it unlimited
2:22:13 power
2:22:16 uh yeah I agree it would be unlimited
2:22:18 Okay so
2:22:21 so I'm just saying is that just from our
2:22:23 observation of continued things we lead
2:22:25 to a conclusion that one Eternal thing
2:22:28 that's independent yeah and that has
2:22:32 unlimited power yeah
2:22:37 non-arbitrary limited power is probably
2:22:40 a better way to say it yeah so that
2:22:42 that's what we're gonna that's and we've
2:22:44 got and now you can see that we've got
2:22:46 justification for that conclusion
2:22:49 so the the next question would be is
2:22:53 um so
2:22:56 so yeah so the next question would be
2:22:58 then does that this thing that has power
2:23:00 which is unlimited
2:23:02 does it have conscious conscious does it
2:23:05 have the ability to think
2:23:06 do they have the power to choose
2:23:10 uh yeah so that's my issue so thing is
2:23:14 if if it's necessary and it like it has
2:23:17 it's self-sustaining right like even
2:23:19 yeah it's power it comes from within
2:23:21 itself so like I was listening to your
2:23:24 previous conversations with the other
2:23:26 guests and I don't remember who but one
2:23:29 guy he said that the atheist has uh two
2:23:31 options either it's infinite regress or
2:23:33 it's a it's an indeterminate cause right
2:23:37 and the thing is like I don't see a
2:23:40 problem with like I'm against infinite
2:23:42 regress I don't agree with it but I
2:23:44 don't see a problem with indeterminate
2:23:45 cause because thing is if it's
2:23:47 self-sustaining right it has knowledge
2:23:49 uh no not even knowledge because if it
2:23:51 has no consciousness it doesn't need
2:23:53 knowledge but let's say it has power
2:23:55 then
2:23:57 I don't see why out of its self-sustence
2:24:00 like for no reason at all why everyone
2:24:02 just already be applying its power
2:24:09 I think I understand but let me uh let
2:24:12 me try and uh we've actually done the
2:24:14 whole stream on this by the way about
2:24:16 from yeah
2:24:20 so one of the arguments one of the
2:24:22 arguments was to say this is say look
2:24:26 you know and it's it's you know I'm
2:24:28 tentative in using this argument but I'm
2:24:30 going to use it anyway is to say look if
2:24:33 you've got a necessary being
2:24:35 that doesn't have Consciousness it means
2:24:38 you're limiting the power
2:24:41 of this necessary being because it you
2:24:44 you've said it's Unlimited in its power
2:24:46 so one of the capacities of power
2:24:49 is to have the ability to be consciously
2:24:51 aware and choose
2:24:54 the way I like the way I see it is like
2:24:57 I see power levels right so like if
2:24:59 there's like five power or 10 power it's
2:25:01 it's arbitrary so like you just remove
2:25:04 the limits and it's unlimited but
2:25:06 like the difference between free will uh
2:25:09 having you know Consciousness and being
2:25:11 deterministic like it it sounds like
2:25:14 diff like different categories it
2:25:16 doesn't seem like deterministic is
2:25:18 limited Free Will and then you remove
2:25:21 the limited becomes like conscious and I
2:25:23 feel like they're completely different
2:25:24 categories so only for this property I
2:25:26 feel like uh this arbitrary limitations
2:25:28 it doesn't really apply
2:25:30 so so let me let me argue that let me
2:25:32 make the point this way so what you're
2:25:34 saying is that you've got a necessary
2:25:36 Eternal thing that necessitates
2:25:39 uh depend the existence of contingent
2:25:42 things yeah yeah yeah right but you've
2:25:45 still got this problem with the fact
2:25:47 that you have If you deny an infinite
2:25:50 regress
2:25:51 then you'd have to say that there was a
2:25:53 point
2:25:54 yeah where there was a necessary being
2:25:56 and no creation or no contingent things
2:25:59 and then the being and then those
2:26:01 contingent things meaning that you had
2:26:04 an eternal cause but you still had but
2:26:07 you had a temporal effect
2:26:11 yeah this is the part that it hurts my
2:26:13 head like I'll try to uh explain how I
2:26:17 uh like I try to compare the two
2:26:19 positions and things like if you're
2:26:21 asking like a general question that if
2:26:23 there's an eternal uh cause and it
2:26:26 necess already the conditions are
2:26:28 sufficient then the effect would be
2:26:30 Eternal but yeah the thing is like when
2:26:32 I normally hear the word eternal
2:26:34 the way I think of it is like it's
2:26:36 always in time
2:26:38 but the thing is like with necessary
2:26:40 being it's it's a Timeless being right
2:26:42 like it's it the effect is the creation
2:26:45 of time
2:26:46 so I don't see even if it was eternal I
2:26:49 don't see how it would be like temporary
2:26:51 temporarily eternally
2:26:53 because uh what's the brother's name
2:26:56 Lemonade okay lemonade man yes yeah
2:26:58 so um yeah I think there are a lot of
2:27:02 like moving pieces to like the um the
2:27:05 the points you're bringing up
2:27:08 uh I I if I were to pinpoint like the
2:27:11 main issue uh yeah I think it's
2:27:16 um I think it's how you depend on
2:27:18 conceivability
2:27:20 to make claims sorry are you uh
2:27:27 um
2:27:28 yeah I'm just uh recovering from V6 so
2:27:32 I'll
2:27:33 um okay
2:27:35 yeah thank you okay can you hear me
2:27:38 better right now yeah yeah I can hear
2:27:40 you okay so I think one of the issues is
2:27:42 how you rely on conceivability
2:27:45 uh to inform you know your metaphysics
2:27:49 or you know your ontology
2:27:51 and um I uh that I think that's a very
2:27:55 common uh practice right regardless of
2:27:58 whether it's right or wrong uh but if
2:28:01 it's because you see your initial
2:28:02 question was about
2:28:04 um well why power right like
2:28:08 this thing called Power
2:28:10 sorry
2:28:12 um and and um
2:28:15 the the motive behind that question
2:28:20 seems to be that they look I can
2:28:24 conceive of this reality
2:28:27 where there is a being but no power or
2:28:30 where there's no being and no power
2:28:33 or uh you know uh um there is a being
2:28:37 with power but you know without other
2:28:39 attributes uh and on that basis your
2:28:44 metaphysical picture
2:28:46 oh account
2:28:49 uh the necessary being is incomplete
2:28:52 right
2:28:54 so so
2:28:56 the problem is the problem is uh jumping
2:28:59 from there
2:29:01 to the idea that
2:29:04 in order to believe that uh the
2:29:08 necessary being Allah exists that
2:29:12 account must be provided
2:29:15 and I I don't you can say that hey well
2:29:18 I want to know why that's okay and
2:29:21 you may or may not find the answer I
2:29:24 think it's uh quite a task to try to
2:29:27 provide a metaphysical account of God's
2:29:29 necessity
2:29:31 into those finer details even
2:29:34 religiously speaking like theologically
2:29:36 the Kun of Allah something that's just
2:29:40 beyond us you know so uh but then you
2:29:43 can have that question let's say right
2:29:45 out of curiosity
2:29:46 um I think uh it will be reasonable to
2:29:51 separate it from the other question of
2:29:53 whether you know that there must exist a
2:29:56 self-sufficient being who's a creator of
2:29:58 the world
2:30:01 then I think
2:30:03 that it becomes just more clear
2:30:06 and something else that needs Clarity is
2:30:09 what is meant by necessity and you know
2:30:12 uh how how that's going to be expressed
2:30:14 uh the modal terms like necessity of
2:30:17 possibility are often very tricky
2:30:19 yeah these discussions
2:30:21 um the the
2:30:23 sometimes people use it the way I hear
2:30:27 is it's as if uh they're speaking about
2:30:29 you know the kind of necessity that you
2:30:32 know if you deny the proposition you
2:30:34 would have a explicit contradiction like
2:30:37 a p and not p
2:30:40 um I I don't see why you would require
2:30:43 that in order to establish some kind of
2:30:46 like um
2:30:48 mental necessity
2:30:50 um the the the
2:30:53 uh so let's look at it yesterday for
2:30:56 example I keep bringing up these days uh
2:31:00 epidemia would say that
2:31:03 from the fact that you know things
2:31:07 are originated they emerge things
2:31:10 occurred in the world do you see them
2:31:11 happening right and uh they they occur
2:31:17 through like a series of like causal
2:31:18 events
2:31:20 all these happenings require
2:31:24 something else to make them happen right
2:31:27 so something that comes into being
2:31:29 require something so there's a need here
2:31:32 right there's a need for external to the
2:31:36 object
2:31:37 to bring the object into being its
2:31:39 dependent opponent
2:31:41 and here he uh you know explores the
2:31:45 meaning of possibility where he's like
2:31:47 that comes into being is a merely
2:31:49 possible in the sense that it's
2:31:52 existence or known existence is
2:31:55 dependent upon factors that are outside
2:31:57 of its own Essence right
2:32:00 and in that sense its existence is not
2:32:03 necessary
2:32:05 just through another but the fact that
2:32:07 there is a chain and that there are
2:32:09 happenings there are occurrences there
2:32:11 is like temporality means uh and uh this
2:32:16 part there are some separate Arguments
2:32:19 for though if you just skip over for now
2:32:20 this means that there is a
2:32:23 um either ultimate or first whatever you
2:32:25 want to call it because every time you
2:32:26 doesn't have a problem with all kinds of
2:32:28 reasons if there is a first
2:32:32 self-sufficient necessary being and why
2:32:34 necessary Purity means well if
2:32:38 necessarily always existed because you
2:32:40 couldn't just come out nowhere then his
2:32:42 Essence his nature is sufficient for his
2:32:45 existence he's he relies on nothing but
2:32:47 himself for his existence
2:32:51 contingent thing because then his
2:32:53 existence wouldn't be necessary and I
2:32:55 mean the reason that is the case because
2:32:57 he always existed there's nothing that
2:32:59 there's no causal force that brought him
2:33:01 into existence right
2:33:03 a sufficient picture right uh I mean at
2:33:07 least this like surface level of like
2:33:09 just arriving at the concept of an SRV
2:33:11 and then of course he goes further but
2:33:14 um uh
2:33:16 the questions you're asking is Digger
2:33:18 digging at a deeper metaphysical level
2:33:21 that I think you know they can be valid
2:33:24 questions to ask
2:33:25 but uh
2:33:28 provided I think from from my
2:33:30 perspective provided you're clear on the
2:33:32 fact that you know that other part is
2:33:35 established it's you know rationally
2:33:37 grounded and uh this other question is
2:33:40 just a matter of I don't know like
2:33:42 curiosity because because your your lack
2:33:44 of knowledge about you know what would
2:33:46 have happened in another world or you
2:33:48 know the the the deepest physical
2:33:51 Secrets yeah yeah go ahead I was gonna
2:33:54 say lemonade accepts the first stage of
2:33:57 the contingency argument but he's still
2:33:59 an atheist he denies the second stage of
2:34:02 the contingency yeah I was gonna say
2:34:04 that I'm fine with like
2:34:06 um Abdullah is saying that there's two
2:34:08 different uh things I'm looking into
2:34:10 right like why does this thing exist in
2:34:12 the first place and why does it need a
2:34:14 mind but I'm fine with like putting the
2:34:17 other question to the side like why does
2:34:19 he have power and all this stuff I'm
2:34:21 fine with it but not the side you're
2:34:22 fine with accepting that this necessary
2:34:24 being has power
2:34:26 yeah you're just you're just not fine
2:34:28 with accepting that nesso being has a
2:34:31 will
2:34:32 yeah because thing is the reasons in
2:34:35 what sense can you elaborate because why
2:34:37 does it exist can be asked in many ways
2:34:39 I mean because if you're talking about a
2:34:41 being that always existed
2:34:43 why does it exist uh in a certain sense
2:34:46 is a meaningless question because if
2:34:48 you're asking it in like a causal sense
2:34:50 because I mean there's no there was no
2:34:51 causal process it's being always existed
2:34:53 but if you're asking at another level
2:34:55 then that would need so so from my
2:34:59 understanding uh he agrees that there's
2:35:02 one thing that's necessary
2:35:04 standard and eternal
2:35:07 basically basically I agree with
2:35:09 everything about her God except
2:35:11 Consciousness like everything else
2:35:13 yeah uh and yes conceivability
2:35:18 so he also accepts so he also accepts
2:35:21 that uh an infinite regress uh is not a
2:35:25 good exercise it's impossible yeah is
2:35:27 impossible and is is your question about
2:35:30 Consciousness related to what you were
2:35:32 saying about power
2:35:34 uh yeah the reason I asked it because if
2:35:38 if the question of why it has specific
2:35:41 attributes isn't answered then
2:35:43 then you can't I feel like you can't
2:35:45 really argue for a cons for it having
2:35:48 consciousness
2:35:50 so that's why I brought it up but like I
2:35:53 get the like I understand that you have
2:35:55 some objections that like a Sharif
2:35:58 brought out some objections that uh if
2:36:00 if it's uh if it doesn't have a
2:36:03 Consciousness then uh the effect would
2:36:05 be Eternal what did you think of my
2:36:08 response to that
2:36:13 the first part you said because maybe
2:36:16 it's relevant I know you want to go to
2:36:18 that question but then just real quickly
2:36:19 okay why can't I know like why can't I
2:36:22 communicate like over a phone let's say
2:36:24 with a being that's in another dimension
2:36:26 or Galaxy or something and somehow know
2:36:29 that they're conscious without knowing
2:36:31 some of their other properties or
2:36:33 knowing
2:36:34 how you don't know how to confirm that
2:36:37 they have those other properties so why
2:36:39 can't you know the Consciousness
2:36:40 independently of those other attributes
2:36:43 oh wait sorry I'm really sorry I got
2:36:46 lost can you like repeat the question
2:36:48 yeah that's probably me okay so you said
2:36:51 that um if you think that if you can't
2:36:53 know the the you know the why he has a
2:36:57 specific attribute you can't know the
2:36:58 Consciousness I'm just wondering why
2:36:59 like why why can't I know that is
2:37:02 consciousness
2:37:03 independently from my knowledge of like
2:37:05 like other specific attributes
2:37:08 uh you're asking like how do I conclude
2:37:11 that like you you guys have
2:37:13 consciousness
2:37:16 I thought you said that if you didn't
2:37:19 know how your being has specific
2:37:22 attributes
2:37:23 then you couldn't know that he is
2:37:25 conscious is that am I right
2:37:27 uh for Unnecessary being
2:37:31 it doesn't make a difference what the
2:37:33 being is so it's a lemonade lemonade
2:37:35 what abdulrahman is asking he's sort of
2:37:37 saying that you're saying well I need an
2:37:39 explanation as to why such and such
2:37:41 thing has an attribute and if I don't
2:37:44 have an explanation for such and such
2:37:46 thing having a particular attribute I
2:37:48 can't believe it has the attribute now
2:37:50 Abdul Rahman is saying well why do I
2:37:52 need an explanation as to why has the
2:37:55 attribute because that's not how we
2:37:57 conclude that so an attribute exists in
2:38:00 a thing
2:38:01 we were just we would approach it in a
2:38:04 different way and so he's just giving
2:38:05 like a hypothetical scenario that you've
2:38:08 got some creatures from a different
2:38:10 dimension you're communicating with them
2:38:12 now you're not going to know how they
2:38:14 got the attribute of being able to have
2:38:17 conscious thought
2:38:19 but you're going to conclude that
2:38:20 they're going to have consciousness
2:38:22 is that correct
2:38:25 well then like in yes I think so in I
2:38:29 mean in regular life I just like I just
2:38:31 see if something is a biological
2:38:33 organism so because of that I conclude
2:38:36 it
2:38:38 um
2:38:42 example he's in different dimension
2:38:45 you're not going to be able to look at
2:38:47 whether it's biological or not
2:38:50 uh am I like different you can say
2:38:53 different galaxy you can say different
2:38:54 galaxies am I like talking to them or
2:38:58 like how do I know I mean you might you
2:39:00 might look good
2:39:01 so if we had a way to communicate with
2:39:04 aliens
2:39:06 you would infer from the fact that
2:39:08 they're consciousness
2:39:10 you know you would say okay then they
2:39:12 must be biological beings that yes
2:39:15 okay you can do that but then the fact
2:39:18 that their Consciousness is something
2:39:19 that you can independently come to the
2:39:22 conclusion
2:39:23 uh if I'm talking to I mean if I'm
2:39:26 communicating with them then yeah
2:39:28 because the thing is like
2:39:30 if we only communicate with biological
2:39:32 entities right so I just it's like
2:39:34 induction I guess
2:39:37 yeah
2:39:38 and uh your concern about stage two is
2:39:42 is that you don't think
2:39:44 you can Google that the necessary being
2:39:47 has a mind
2:39:48 yeah
2:39:51 okay
2:39:53 um
2:39:53 one just maybe if you can elaborate a
2:39:57 bit I just want to speak in a vacuum
2:39:58 Maybe
2:40:00 arguments you're more convinced with
2:40:01 than others or whatever but can you just
2:40:04 explain why you're not convinced
2:40:06 whatsoever or what your position is if
2:40:08 you're an agnostic or if you're maybe
2:40:09 like a yeah I just the softball
2:40:12 naturalistic of some sort
2:40:15 uh naturally is naturalist synonymous
2:40:18 with materialism because then I'm not
2:40:20 nice so let's say the kind of naturalism
2:40:23 that like would say that the the
2:40:25 Ultimate Reality of just fundamentally
2:40:27 just unconscious and unguided you know
2:40:31 teleologically innocent so just to
2:40:34 simplify it there's a necessary being a
2:40:36 first cause with no consciousness let's
2:40:39 let's put that as naturalism right yeah
2:40:42 is that your position or yeah like it's
2:40:45 just
2:40:46 yeah like think of it as just like
2:40:49 uh like just a deterministic event like
2:40:52 the the yeah or is it just something
2:40:55 you're entertaining
2:40:57 uh these are the these are these are the
2:41:01 only two choices I see like one is
2:41:02 consciousness God and the other is this
2:41:04 one but I feel like there's no reason to
2:41:06 choose one over the other okay so you're
2:41:08 just agnostic into right yeah yeah yeah
2:41:12 okay
2:41:14 have you taken a look at arguments that
2:41:17 try to argue for
2:41:19 the theistic hypothesis
2:41:23 uh like I've I've seen your videos but
2:41:26 like I haven't I don't like read a lot
2:41:29 of because the papers
2:41:33 or whatever oh yeah yeah I've seen like
2:41:35 I've seen the video that uh Sharif
2:41:37 mentioned the four Arguments for why uh
2:41:40 necessary being has to have a
2:41:41 Consciousness I feel like I have
2:41:43 objections to them so yeah I'm just
2:41:45 testing them okay so how about what he
2:41:47 mentioned about you know the
2:41:49 Eternal cause and the Eternal affecting
2:41:52 um
2:41:53 yeah so the reason it like it's a bit
2:41:57 like fuzzy to me is because when when
2:41:59 you usually say eternal
2:42:01 uh Eternal the way I understand it is
2:42:04 that it it applies to time like if
2:42:07 something's Eternal it's been in time
2:42:09 like forever but if you're talking about
2:42:11 a necessary being then it's it's a
2:42:14 Timeless thing and the effect is to
2:42:17 create time and if infinite regress is
2:42:20 impossible then I feel like it wouldn't
2:42:22 be Eternal like okay it's impossible
2:42:24 let's assume it's a being that's always
2:42:26 been in time okay so I mean because
2:42:29 because it doesn't necessarily follow
2:42:31 from like the hypothesis of a necessary
2:42:33 being that that being must be timeless
2:42:37 um that is
2:42:39 if it's already in time then I don't
2:42:43 know like wouldn't that be like again
2:42:45 infinite regress like it would be in
2:42:47 time forever then like that whole
2:42:49 infinite regress of temporal events
2:42:51 thing
2:42:52 possibly but it depends on what what
2:42:54 like kind of regress it is first of all
2:42:57 and what model of like time you would
2:43:00 prefer
2:43:01 um
2:43:02 I think like the naturalistic hypothesis
2:43:04 that you would prefer or that you're
2:43:06 considering I mean uh so what what's
2:43:09 what kind of like naturalistic Universe
2:43:11 would you picture what what kind of
2:43:13 beginning would you picture in relation
2:43:14 to this question of like time and
2:43:16 request like what would have happened
2:43:18 uh just like a a big bang coming out of
2:43:22 like a caused by a an immaterial
2:43:24 necessary thing
2:43:29 so you believe there's an immaterial
2:43:31 necessary thing
2:43:33 yeah yeah like I said I believe uh in
2:43:36 like almost monotheism except the
2:43:39 Consciousness part I believe let's say
2:43:42 you can call it like an uh like an
2:43:44 immaterial generator or something I feel
2:43:46 like there's no like it's just a
2:43:48 survival as God okay okay and and okay
2:43:51 so now I get it better so now your
2:43:53 objection with sharif's point is that
2:43:55 you think the the immaterial necessary
2:43:57 thing right now is going to be
2:44:00 Eternal in the sense that it just has no
2:44:03 relation to time whatsoever or is it
2:44:06 that it's it's um
2:44:09 to time
2:44:12 uh no it wouldn't be because okay it's
2:44:14 like is is the definition of time
2:44:17 measure of change fine like I see it as
2:44:20 yeah
2:44:23 uh yeah so I mean the
2:44:26 uh like if it exists by itself then it
2:44:29 wouldn't be in time right unless it
2:44:32 creates unless the universe is
2:44:35 like provided you have one it's okay if
2:44:37 you don't have one where like you know
2:44:40 your your where you last landed on this
2:44:43 question is that there's a
2:44:46 non-material necessary being who caused
2:44:49 the big
2:44:50 that's what generally you would prefer
2:44:52 right yeah
2:44:53 but then you said you have a particular
2:44:56 view of eternality in relation to you
2:44:58 know time to explain how that view would
2:45:02 apply to this specific necessary being
2:45:04 you're talking about
2:45:06 uh eternality
2:45:09 so is it Eternal is this is the material
2:45:11 necessary being eternal
2:45:13 okay the the way I would say it is that
2:45:15 it's timelessly eternal
2:45:18 but then like after the generation of
2:45:20 the Big Bang or like the universe then I
2:45:24 don't know like I'm not sure what to
2:45:25 call it like it
2:45:27 like intuitively I guess it makes sense
2:45:29 then it it it's part of time now
2:45:32 I actually don't know how to look at it
2:45:34 yeah that's fine but because because I
2:45:37 guess because the confusion sorry is
2:45:39 initially because you said that for you
2:45:42 um
2:45:42 um you see eternality as uh something
2:45:47 like always being in time but that
2:45:49 doesn't really go with what you're
2:45:50 saying about the Timeless being right or
2:45:53 misunderstanding yeah uh no uh
2:45:57 regarding you're talking regarding the
2:45:59 objection right the always yes yes
2:46:03 uh yeah the thing is it's it's it's
2:46:06 really hard to like like even I don't
2:46:09 have let me explain for you lemonade um
2:46:11 let me explain for you
2:46:13 so lemonade basically lemonade is
2:46:15 basically trying to uh say that time
2:46:17 began
2:46:19 at the moment of the creation of
2:46:21 continued things so therefore by
2:46:24 definition he's trying to say there was
2:46:26 no moment of time
2:46:28 that creation or dependent contingent
2:46:31 things did not exist
2:46:35 uh wait am I saying this or is uploaded
2:46:37 no you're fine because he accepts that
2:46:40 that's that's the confusion though
2:46:42 because his uh his his objection to your
2:46:44 argument will tell me otherwise but then
2:46:46 it seems the position he accepts is that
2:46:48 there's ever two immaterial Timeless
2:46:51 being
2:46:53 basically initiated the Big Bang or
2:46:55 created The Big Bang Yeah so so um
2:47:01 yeah I would say the thing is like if
2:47:04 before time it's really hard to like
2:47:06 speak about it intuitively because uh
2:47:10 like I imagine if let's say if it was a
2:47:12 God right then like even if it's God I
2:47:14 don't know how to like go about it like
2:47:16 did God exist without time and then he
2:47:20 waited like did does he wait to create
2:47:23 or is it like no waiting it's like
2:47:26 really yeah I understand of course
2:47:28 conceptually it's just very difficult I
2:47:30 I agree but think of it this way based
2:47:33 on what Sharif was saying so uh
2:47:37 um like the effect always existing thing
2:47:40 like I mean couldn't the effect also be
2:47:43 Eternal if uh you were talking about
2:47:46 something that just necessarily follows
2:47:49 uh from the thing is the thing is if if
2:47:52 we've established that infinite regress
2:47:54 is impossible then like
2:47:56 if we can't really say that it would be
2:47:58 Eternal right
2:47:59 okay good so so that's that's the thing
2:48:01 so right now you have a temporal effect
2:48:03 right so you have a temporal effect
2:48:07 and you have a being that initiated that
2:48:10 temporal effect
2:48:13 no no I
2:48:15 think's argument would be wrong there
2:48:21 information whatever causal process or
2:48:24 whatever happened there
2:48:26 if it was just like you know just
2:48:28 necessarily there it wouldn't like the
2:48:31 you wouldn't really have this it would
2:48:33 just be all the effect just be always
2:48:34 there right just difficult to see how
2:48:36 you'd have them
2:48:39 maybe this will help so let me think
2:48:42 about modal logic think about possible
2:48:44 worlds yeah so you've got
2:48:47 a world in which
2:48:49 uh only the necessary being exists which
2:48:53 you agree there was a world where only
2:48:55 the necessary being exists and then you
2:48:57 have a world in which an essay being
2:48:59 will exist and also contingent things
2:49:02 exist
2:49:03 now if a necessary being is necessitated
2:49:06 to create
2:49:08 and by the way that's a possibility so
2:49:10 you can have a possibility of only a
2:49:12 necessary being and you have a
2:49:14 possibility of Ernesto being and
2:49:16 contingent beings you agree yeah yeah
2:49:20 now if you hold on to the view that
2:49:22 Ernesto being is by necessity created it
2:49:26 means you can't have a a possible World
2:49:29 in which there's only a necessary being
2:49:31 there has to be in all possible worlds
2:49:34 there has to be a nesto being and
2:49:36 contingent beings
2:49:39 okay yeah I get what you're saying so
2:49:42 yeah you're saying that in my view it
2:49:44 would be impossible for there to be only
2:49:46 the necessary being right right that
2:49:48 would be an impossibility
2:49:50 well but you're trying to affirm two
2:49:53 things you're trying to affirm that yes
2:49:54 we have eternal cause
2:49:57 but at the same time we have a temporal
2:50:02 effect
2:50:03 yeah contingent things
2:50:05 yeah
2:50:08 do you have about the ability to have a
2:50:11 possible world
2:50:12 in which you have a neso being without
2:50:16 uh continued things but also you can
2:50:19 have contingent beings and uh sorry
2:50:22 necessarily being uncontinued things
2:50:25 foreign
2:50:46 my position I feel that it's
2:50:49 this is a problem that
2:50:52 um
2:50:53 because it's necessitarianism right you
2:50:57 can't have a world where uh in my
2:51:00 position there won't be like a necessary
2:51:02 without any continuous beings but thing
2:51:04 is yeah the reason I I can't hold to the
2:51:07 other position as well is because even
2:51:09 that position I feel like there's
2:51:12 problems because like God if he
2:51:17 like how does he decide like I mean if
2:51:20 if
2:51:21 he doesn't uh decide right then is he
2:51:24 still in time or because he has to wait
2:51:27 about lemonade for an eternity right no
2:51:30 no but that's a separate question that's
2:51:32 a separate issue
2:51:34 initially that we're trying to get to is
2:51:38 can you have a situation where you have
2:51:40 an eternal cause and a temple effect now
2:51:42 your contention to this would say well
2:51:44 we need to think about time because
2:51:46 before the universe was
2:51:49 so in essence the effect is
2:51:55 you know there was no there was no
2:51:57 because the effect is now time there was
2:52:00 no time without this effect that's what
2:52:02 you try to argue yet for a view of time
2:52:05 now yeah what you've also now accepted
2:52:08 it seems like is that if we changed it
2:52:12 and we're not talking about time now
2:52:13 we're just talking about possible worlds
2:52:14 then we have a situation where you would
2:52:16 agree that there is a possible World in
2:52:18 which they're necessary being exists
2:52:20 without contingent things and that
2:52:22 there's an essay being that exists with
2:52:24 Continuum beings you agree that that's
2:52:26 the possibility
2:52:30 uh possibility in like a conceptual
2:52:32 sense or because then there's this
2:52:34 question as well like in the conceptual
2:52:35 sense yeah
2:52:37 well you if you say it's in a conceptual
2:52:39 sense if you're a necessitarian you'd
2:52:42 have to say no that's an impossibility
2:52:45 uh there would always be one State of
2:52:47 Affairs which is
2:52:50 what is I don't know like isn't
2:52:53 conceptual doesn't it just mean like you
2:52:55 imagine it like I can still imagine that
2:52:57 the thing it doesn't have the power
2:53:01 so when we when we're talking about in
2:53:03 this particular context
2:53:04 the example that I'm trying to give you
2:53:06 uh or the the sort of way to think about
2:53:09 this is all I'm trying to say is that
2:53:10 look if you believe you're a
2:53:12 necessitarian
2:53:14 yeah then you are committed to only one
2:53:18 possibility
2:53:19 yeah and that possibility is a universe
2:53:23 with an ESO being and contingent and an
2:53:26 emptying beings
2:53:29 uh okay so if how long have I been here
2:53:32 I feel like I'm going to like uh I need
2:53:35 to like digest
2:53:38 but if you're if you're tired and you
2:53:41 want to give it
2:53:42 because I think sure you've can you very
2:53:46 briefly repeat your point because I just
2:53:47 got back just very briefly what's that
2:53:50 sorry abdorfman you want to jump in just
2:53:52 very briefly I can't very briefly repeat
2:53:54 your point because I just called back
2:53:56 right now all right I think lemonade has
2:53:58 to go but I think the point that I'm
2:54:00 trying to explain to Lemonade is that he
2:54:02 accepts that the he accepts that you
2:54:05 can't have an infinite regress so it
2:54:06 means that you he accepts that you can't
2:54:09 have contingent beings that always exist
2:54:11 yeah means that they exist in all
2:54:13 possible worlds that there will be
2:54:15 worlds that they cannot exist in or
2:54:18 there'll be worlds where they don't
2:54:19 exist because an infinite regress of
2:54:21 continued things cannot be Eternal yeah
2:54:24 so he accepts that so he accepts that
2:54:26 there's an impossibility
2:54:28 of continued things existing in all
2:54:31 possible worlds
2:54:32 yeah as a necessity
2:54:35 he also accepts the fact that a
2:54:38 necessary being exists but he then wants
2:54:42 to affirm a necessary being necessitate
2:54:44 contingent things so I'm saying that is
2:54:48 a contradiction that's a logical
2:54:49 contradiction because he's having to
2:54:52 affirm both a nesto being and continued
2:54:54 beings existable worlds and then also at
2:54:58 the same time saying but continue means
2:55:00 cannot exist in all possible worlds
2:55:01 because an infinite regress is
2:55:03 impossible
2:55:05 I think it's because like I I think it's
2:55:07 because of my understanding of
2:55:09 conception like what is a possible world
2:55:12 because for me I don't see a
2:55:13 contradiction between like believing
2:55:16 that okay the necessary being
2:55:17 necessitates its effect but I can still
2:55:20 conceive of the necessary being not uh
2:55:23 not having any effect so like is this
2:55:26 the contradiction for you no no no no
2:55:27 laminate the contradiction maybe can
2:55:30 confirm this contradiction seems to be
2:55:32 the fact that you are affirming the fact
2:55:34 that and infinite regress is impossible
2:55:38 there have to be it has to be a state of
2:55:41 affairs in reality where continued
2:55:43 things do not exist
2:55:47 yeah yeah uh yeah yeah
2:55:49 and then at the same time you want to
2:55:51 find necessary being necessitates
2:55:54 contingent things
2:55:58 but on a conceptual level
2:56:01 no no I'm saying this is what you said
2:56:02 originally
2:56:04 no I said it's possible Right like when
2:56:06 you ask uh
2:56:12 so if if you think that uh contingent
2:56:17 things uh you know like we must have
2:56:19 existed in the sense that there couldn't
2:56:20 be any moment of time or state of
2:56:23 existence where no contingent being
2:56:25 existed
2:56:27 then yeah what you're saying would would
2:56:29 be a problem so I mean is
2:56:32 that what you're saying like what what's
2:56:34 your what's your position on the
2:56:36 necessity or lack thereof of contingent
2:56:39 things in general
2:56:41 a lack of contingent things
2:56:44 like you think necessarily something
2:56:46 contingent must have existed or are you
2:56:50 agnostic about that or like what's your
2:56:52 position well I mean ultimately I'm
2:56:54 agnostic about that but if you're asking
2:56:56 about is it possible then but guys
2:56:58 honestly like I'm this is going over my
2:57:00 head like I think I'll have to like that
2:57:02 is what you guys said yeah yeah like
2:57:04 I'll rewatch this conversation and like
2:57:06 like so it's like hurting my head it's
2:57:08 fine but just just the last thing to say
2:57:10 that you see you see for me
2:57:13 um uh an argument like that proves like
2:57:16 any particular conclusion or to
2:57:19 um
2:57:20 like any particular argument is not I
2:57:23 can't like say that it's going to be oh
2:57:24 the argument that
2:57:26 um uh the most suitable for uh specific
2:57:29 question or not in a vacuuming the
2:57:33 reason I was asking you questions is
2:57:34 because it just depends on where you're
2:57:36 coming from uh the the there are many
2:57:39 arguments and many reasons to uh believe
2:57:43 the like why what I what I what I see is
2:57:46 the obvious truth of the creator of the
2:57:49 world having an intention a purpose in
2:57:52 creating the world of being intelligent
2:57:54 necessarily in order to create the world
2:57:56 and also that you know uh that being is
2:58:02 is going to hold us morally accountable
2:58:05 given some of our moral intuitions and
2:58:07 whatnot I think there are many many
2:58:08 reasons I think
2:58:10 um
2:58:20 you've gone really low
2:58:23 yeah something that's like a knocking
2:58:25 sound
2:58:26 yeah sorry I'm doing my opinion there's
2:58:28 some sound but lemonade
2:58:30 um I mean
2:58:32 um
2:58:33 yeah I think
2:58:35 um
2:58:38 have a re-listen to this discussion I
2:58:42 think there's lots of different
2:58:43 arguments that we come with when it
2:58:46 comes to the issue of concluding that
2:58:48 Ernesto being has a mind it has the
2:58:49 ability to intend to create there's not
2:58:52 just one particular argument that we use
2:58:55 um yeah but I think your problem that
2:58:57 you've got lemonade is you want to you
2:58:59 initially you said that you had the
2:59:00 nesso being that necessitation
2:59:04 and then I said well what about this
2:59:06 eternal effect and temporal cause so
2:59:09 temporal effects and eternal cause and
2:59:12 you said yeah but
2:59:14 um you got this issue about
2:59:16 time beginning and then I said well okay
2:59:19 think about it in a modal sense yeah
2:59:20 because on the one hand you're affirming
2:59:22 the fact that an infinite regress is
2:59:23 impossible
2:59:25 and then on the other hand you're saying
2:59:27 that this necessary being necessity now
2:59:28 if you're saying well I don't
2:59:30 necessarily have to believe in that well
2:59:31 you're saying well yeah you can't
2:59:32 believe those two things together I
2:59:34 think you've got a problem because of
2:59:35 that but how about they think about it
2:59:38 and if you want to come on um next time
2:59:44 yeah I can hear you now here you know
2:59:46 yeah okay yeah eliminate if you're on
2:59:49 social media like Twitter or Clubhouse
2:59:51 message me because I think you're
2:59:52 reasonable and I I like talking to
2:59:54 reasonable people so um are you
2:59:56 if you have me on Twitter you can find
2:59:58 my Twitter somewhere here on the channel
3:00:00 I think in the
3:00:01 I think in the description yeah sure
3:00:04 sure but uh before I go can I like ask
3:00:07 one more question like is this a small
3:00:08 idea I mean just like sometimes when I'm
3:00:11 reading these arguments right like
3:00:13 watching these videos and everything I I
3:00:15 get like really frustrated like they get
3:00:17 like really abstract and I feel like
3:00:19 like it doesn't like it doesn't make
3:00:21 sense like why do you need to go like so
3:00:24 far just to like cover God and well
3:00:27 Islam is supposed to be like for
3:00:29 like like everyone right so I I I agree
3:00:33 lemonade that's exactly what I was
3:00:34 saying uh like it's it's part of the
3:00:37 reason for why I was saying what I was
3:00:39 saying when my mic stopped working is
3:00:41 that like a lot of the reasons are just
3:00:43 like right there like right in your
3:00:45 everyday life In your experience and in
3:00:48 your just a observation of the world and
3:00:51 what happens around you and your own
3:00:52 moral intuitions and experiences it's
3:00:55 much more complex actually than than
3:00:57 just a an oversimplified uh yet at the
3:01:01 same time sophisticated abstract
3:01:03 metaphysical discussion about causality
3:01:05 and stuff but sometimes the what I was
3:01:07 what I was saying is that sometimes
3:01:09 that's where you need to go based on
3:01:11 like who you're talking to because
3:01:13 sometimes that's where the person's
3:01:14 thinking is uh but I do agree with you
3:01:18 that just generally speaking there's a
3:01:20 lot of reasons that are just like right
3:01:21 there like right I think available to
3:01:25 um everybody's experience basically
3:01:27 okay okay yeah I get it thanks
3:01:31 I'll be leaving all right okay take care
3:01:34 all right thanks guys no problem thank
3:01:36 you
3:01:37 yeah I think that's a good point uh at
3:01:40 the end because
3:01:41 uh yeah we can it seems complicated but
3:01:44 I don't think it's that complicated the
3:01:46 point that we were trying to make
3:01:47 um but you're right I think sometimes uh
3:01:50 it's if it's new to to come across as a
3:01:53 bit of a complicated argument
3:01:56 but the essence of the point is this is
3:01:58 that when we look out into the world
3:02:01 and we see things which seem to have
3:02:04 order which could have been another way
3:02:06 there seems to be some sort of
3:02:08 intentionality behind it yeah
3:02:11 you know a desire for human beings that
3:02:14 when it comes to the conclusion that
3:02:15 something Eternal created everything
3:02:17 else
3:02:18 it's almost automatic that that person
3:02:20 is going to think of a of a willing
3:02:22 agent yeah
3:02:24 so
3:02:25 um but yeah it's uh you know it takes
3:02:27 time for some people to for it to cement
3:02:29 in
3:02:31 um abdulrahman how long have you got
3:02:33 because we've been going on for three
3:02:34 hours now
3:02:35 and we've got one two three
3:02:39 four five
3:02:41 six guests
3:02:44 um I I have a while so I mean I guess
3:02:46 the ones that maybe you could like close
3:02:48 the the queue pretty soon but like the
3:02:53 ones who have been waiting for a long
3:02:55 time maybe bring the one so that they
3:02:56 don't there's a brother who's been
3:02:58 asking for a while I think his name is
3:02:59 uh he was just asking him his name is
3:03:01 said
3:03:04 um I'm not sure
3:03:06 there's two sides we've got
3:03:09 is it sorry depending on how what the
3:03:11 queue looks like on your end so because
3:03:12 maybe there are people waiting for him
3:03:13 but I'm not sure
3:03:15 yeah there's about uh two three people
3:03:17 before him four people one one two three
3:03:20 four five is six
3:03:24 and asteroid Engineers just come on but
3:03:27 unfortunately our engineer we're gonna
3:03:28 We're not gonna be able to take you came
3:03:31 on towards uh too late I'm gonna put the
3:03:33 banner down no more guess right so we're
3:03:36 gonna try and go through this as quickly
3:03:38 as possible because I thought we have
3:03:39 been on for three hours I do apologize
3:03:41 but we will do more of these types of
3:03:42 streams because I know Brothers uh they
3:03:44 like these types of streams Insha'Allah
3:03:46 uh just to just also just really quickly
3:03:48 is uh Jake couldn't come on today
3:03:50 because he was on uh blogging Theology
3:03:53 and he was on there for four hours
3:03:55 yeah so um
3:03:58 yes alhamdulillah he was on there for a
3:04:00 long time
3:04:01 um and so he was just he overran and he
3:04:03 couldn't join our stream today uh so
3:04:06 we'll bring some UK on
3:04:08 hello Sam oh yeah are you doing yeah
3:04:12 good good uh we're getting one question
3:04:15 to be honest and we're gonna try and be
3:04:16 brief because we want to try and uh get
3:04:18 through everybody's uh you've been
3:04:20 waiting sorry sir apologize well we're
3:04:24 gonna see how this goes yeah my question
3:04:26 was you know I heard a lot of arguments
3:04:29 um
3:04:30 uh you know the
3:04:32 the the previous scriptures or like the
3:04:34 people that book like the Christian and
3:04:36 the Jews they're uh corrupted and
3:04:39 they're not to be kind of
3:04:42 believed in
3:04:43 and
3:04:46 well
3:04:47 when I read the Quran I don't I don't
3:04:49 get our impression
3:04:51 according to Quran it were as Muslims we
3:04:54 went to believe in the scriptures of the
3:04:56 of the people of the book
3:04:58 under verses that clearly
3:05:00 say this as well
3:05:04 switching your thoughts or not
3:05:09 um yeah so there's lots of verses in
3:05:10 terms of referencing about
3:05:14 speak to the people of the book or
3:05:17 um if you do not know then go to people
3:05:19 addicted uh and there are also other
3:05:21 verses which talk about how it condemns
3:05:24 the people of the previous scriptures
3:05:26 for writing the Revelation with their
3:05:28 own hands and yeah but there's only one
3:05:31 verse I think that says uh and that is
3:05:34 it's in a certain context it's not a
3:05:36 saying I I understand Bob you say I'm
3:05:39 now trying to get into a back and forth
3:05:40 with you uh I'm just explaining to you
3:05:43 that there are verses that talk about
3:05:44 this there are other verses that talk
3:05:45 about how the Quran is uh is a
3:05:50 for a watcher over the other previous
3:05:53 scriptures and so
3:05:57 um you know this is generally how we
3:05:58 take it now classically the scholars
3:06:01 have either adopted the position which
3:06:03 is that the text is preserved but the
3:06:07 meaning has changed or you know
3:06:09 including classically they've also said
3:06:11 that the text and the meaning have been
3:06:13 changed and we know from
3:06:15 um you know from uh you know just
3:06:18 scholarly
3:06:20 non-muslim academic approach that there
3:06:23 are texts within the New Testament and
3:06:25 the Old Testament
3:06:27 I've heard all the arguments but I want
3:06:30 to concentrate on what the Quran says
3:06:32 because you know you said before that
3:06:35 you know there's Scholars of the past
3:06:37 have said you know another Texas has
3:06:40 changed and saw the meaning or just the
3:06:43 meaning of change but you don't get out
3:06:45 when you read the Quran so why should we
3:06:46 believe these Scholars when they come
3:06:48 without conclusion I I get it I get it I
3:06:50 get it when I read the Quran
3:06:52 sorry Google
3:06:55 meaning changed yeah well I'm I'm
3:06:59 looking at a verse foreign
3:07:05 and it says
3:07:08 I believe in the message I sent down
3:07:10 confirming what you already possess and
3:07:12 thus speaking to the uh the children of
3:07:15 Israel
3:07:16 and
3:07:18 so what do you think that means
3:07:21 he's uh
3:07:26 [Music]
3:07:29 firming what the books that they already
3:07:31 have
3:07:33 yeah so so
3:07:35 um
3:07:36 in a sense yes the Quran is confirming
3:07:39 the books that even the Jews and the
3:07:41 Christians have today but that doesn't
3:07:44 mean that the books have been entirely
3:07:46 preserved so yeah but I'll tell you that
3:07:49 I have a message that confirms what you
3:07:51 have in your book it doesn't mean that
3:07:53 it confirms every single word in the
3:07:55 book it's talking about a particular
3:07:57 message there's a context and there are
3:07:59 a Hadith and traditions that relate to
3:08:01 such verses that would give a fuller
3:08:04 context and it's really not
3:08:08 uh you know
3:08:10 um as simple as you're making it seem
3:08:12 like yeah I think it is and God making
3:08:15 it simple but we're getting over
3:08:17 complicating with hadiths and otherwise
3:08:19 Scholars opinions are no well Sam Sam
3:08:22 I've been the problem that you have is
3:08:23 this is that
3:08:24 you're trying to you're you've got your
3:08:27 interpretation of the Quran yeah before
3:08:29 we go to which interpretation of the
3:08:31 Quran is true or not
3:08:33 is the altar is the new
3:08:35 to the New Testament
3:08:37 the Revelation that was given to Jesus
3:08:41 well that that's irrelevant
3:08:43 um
3:08:44 are you are you Muslims now yes I am
3:08:48 yeah
3:08:49 that's what has to be relevant because
3:08:52 it's not relevant because we have to go
3:08:54 by what the Quran says so even though
3:08:56 you prove that all the the New Testament
3:08:58 well
3:08:59 I want to say New Testament yeah you
3:09:00 know the Quran refers to the to the
3:09:02 injil and the Torah by name and also the
3:09:06 books well what do you deal is he
3:09:08 referring to Sam is it real 32 Matthew
3:09:11 Mark Luke and John or is it referring to
3:09:13 what was revealed to Islam Jesus
3:09:16 and without Matthew Luke and John
3:09:19 because that's what yeah because you
3:09:22 believe you believe so when the Quran
3:09:25 mentions that in jail revealed to Jesus
3:09:27 you believe that's Matthew Mark Luke and
3:09:29 John yes it is because
3:09:36 those books Mark Martin Luke and John
3:09:39 Mayer contain the angel what else do
3:09:42 they contain
3:09:43 so one of the things that happened at
3:09:45 the time of Jesus
3:09:46 okay so they contained in deal and what
3:09:49 else what do although events that happen
3:09:52 at that time the opinion right okay so
3:09:54 some of that events is that part of the
3:09:57 Revelation or not
3:09:58 well some of it I wouldn't say it's
3:10:01 called either being Jill but still it's
3:10:02 relevant in the describing is it part of
3:10:05 the Revelation or not
3:10:08 he's fighting Jill or not yeah well I
3:10:11 think I think it is because God uh you
3:10:13 know has uh part of the Revelation
3:10:16 because some of you know you understand
3:10:17 that the New Testament has letters from
3:10:20 Paul
3:10:21 yeah but there's no that's not part of
3:10:23 Revelation because that is what that's
3:10:26 the new
3:10:28 testamentally Christians believe that
3:10:31 this is part of Revelation yeah but I'm
3:10:34 not talking about Christians believe I'm
3:10:35 talking about the angel so so you
3:10:37 believe it has been distorted exactly
3:10:41 there's two things
3:10:43 new testimony
3:10:45 act the gospels yeah the four gospels
3:10:47 and then they consist of books after uh
3:10:50 the time of Jesus right
3:10:52 yeah
3:10:54 throughout the time of Jesus
3:10:56 all the books in all the books of the
3:10:58 New Testament after the time of Jesus
3:11:00 I'm saying the fall you've got the
3:11:03 synoptic gospels which is about the life
3:11:05 of Jesus yeah and then you've got the
3:11:08 non-synaptic works like the letters of
3:11:12 Paul Corinthians the non-stop because
3:11:15 they're not revelation
3:11:17 but the Christians they believe they are
3:11:19 Revelations you know no they can't
3:11:22 believe what right
3:11:24 so by definition now you're believing
3:11:27 that the Christians by definition you're
3:11:29 believing the Christians have added to
3:11:32 the Revelation no no no no no no no
3:11:34 yeah you're getting him mixed up what is
3:11:38 the Quran confirms the gospel right and
3:11:40 for me that is it confirming though
3:11:43 you're saying it confirms the gospels
3:11:45 but you're saying it confirms on these
3:11:47 synoptic gospels but not
3:11:50 that's right yeah
3:11:52 so you're saying that you're saying the
3:11:54 parts of what the Christians claim which
3:11:56 is false yes yes so and so the Quran
3:12:00 when it says refer to the previous
3:12:01 scripture it's not returning you to
3:12:04 refer to the corrupted ones is it was I
3:12:07 won't say it's just the books written
3:12:09 after you know the The Fog so the
3:12:12 letters the letters of Paul weren't
3:12:13 there when that verse that you read was
3:12:15 revealed saying that it confirms what is
3:12:18 in the book are you saying are you
3:12:21 saying that the letters of Paul they
3:12:23 were not there or the parts that you
3:12:25 think are distortions or not there in
3:12:27 the book or in the scriptures when that
3:12:29 verse in the Quran was revealed the one
3:12:31 you recited
3:12:34 how do you know
3:12:40 what do you mean well at the time the
3:12:43 crime revealed we already had Christians
3:12:44 here and all them with the books after
3:12:47 the uh the four gospel Glory written
3:12:50 down and uh what I'm what I mean is the
3:12:53 one the parts that you are saying are
3:12:54 distortions
3:12:56 well I'm not saying Distortion I'm
3:12:57 saying these books were written after
3:13:00 you know the
3:13:02 well these books are not written at the
3:13:05 time of the uh yes they're not
3:13:06 Revelations is God's saying that they're
3:13:09 that they are that is that part of what
3:13:11 God is saying the Quran is confirming no
3:13:13 they're not part of what God is
3:13:15 confirming yeah now were they present in
3:13:17 the scriptures of Christians
3:13:19 yes they were they were okay exactly so
3:13:22 if something can be present in the
3:13:24 scripture that is not part of the
3:13:25 Revelation and that verse still stands
3:13:28 by your understanding then the same
3:13:30 applies to our position so you can't say
3:13:33 you're getting confused so I'm saying oh
3:13:36 wait let me finish let me finish so I'm
3:13:37 saying that that verse earlier I told
3:13:39 you that part of like one interpretation
3:13:41 not necessarily the only one is that
3:13:43 that verse can be like it's a
3:13:45 confirmation of like specific
3:13:48 significant parts of what you have
3:13:50 within your Revelation within your books
3:13:52 now you're saying the same thing you're
3:13:54 saying that that verse is a confirmation
3:13:56 of part of what they have in their
3:13:59 scripture so what's the difference
3:14:00 between my position and yours
3:14:04 is
3:14:12 yeah what I'm trying to say yeah if the
3:14:15 Christians if they just follow the uh
3:14:17 the gospels the four synoptic gospels
3:14:19 then and though they don't accept Jesus
3:14:22 as a you know kind of literal Son of God
3:14:24 then they're fine to follow the there's
3:14:27 no there's no issue with that that's not
3:14:29 that's not a claim that's not the
3:14:30 discussion right now discussion about is
3:14:32 whether the Quran confirms those as
3:14:34 Revelation
3:14:35 it's related because it's not it's
3:14:38 related but it's not the discussion
3:14:41 it's confirming that the books that the
3:14:44 uh the Christians are following their
3:14:47 call call their book which are their
3:14:49 core beliefs if they're following
3:14:53 are they confirming that it's revelation
3:14:56 yes
3:14:58 and was the were the letters of Paul
3:15:01 part of that no I just said enough
3:15:03 they're not part of that although the
3:15:05 Christians have had it within their
3:15:07 books
3:15:08 okay so in the same sense by that same
3:15:11 logic they can have the distortions that
3:15:14 we are saying are distortions yet the
3:15:16 verse can still stand in relation to
3:15:18 other segments I want you to read if you
3:15:20 don't mind uh the Quran chapter four
3:15:23 just the beginning of the verse 446.
3:15:27 sure sorry which uh chapter 4 verse 46.
3:15:31 4 46.
3:15:39 right
3:15:41 it says some Jews distort the meaning of
3:15:44 reveal words they say we hear and
3:15:47 disobey and listen adding the insult may
3:15:50 you know here and so Distortion the
3:15:53 Distortion part is that an indication of
3:15:57 is that an indication of of corruption
3:16:00 uh by the way the transition the
3:16:02 translation you read the word meaning
3:16:03 was in between brackets
3:16:06 no it wasn't
3:16:08 okay so that's a bad translation because
3:16:10 I really use the following one it says
3:16:13 of the Jews that assume who displays
3:16:15 words from their places and it's got
3:16:19 right in in Brackets
3:16:21 and and say we're here and we disobey
3:16:24 yeah so this verse can be used as
3:16:27 support for you know the the position
3:16:30 that's in all position to you why not
3:16:33 how can we
3:16:35 if you distort words from their places
3:16:37 literally then you're quite literally
3:16:39 distorting yeah but it it doesn't mean
3:16:41 no it's not it's not saying the destroy
3:16:43 the text it's saying when they're
3:16:45 reading their scripture yeah they're not
3:16:47 they're not really oh sorry I didn't say
3:16:49 anything about reading
3:16:52 you say it says there are those who
3:16:53 destroy
3:16:54 discipline their places
3:16:57 yes exactly so
3:17:00 that means that it means that they've
3:17:02 changed the uh the way the the uh the
3:17:05 Old Testament written down
3:17:07 I'm saying it's it's I'm saying under a
3:17:09 certain view if I'm doing if I'm doing
3:17:11 what you're doing by just looking at
3:17:13 verses and picking up in isolation and
3:17:15 building my building building uh you
3:17:17 know my view on that then then then then
3:17:19 then I can say that it it's it's it's a
3:17:23 very possible implication of the verse
3:17:24 in the same way the other verse you used
3:17:26 uh could have an implication that the
3:17:29 implication that you're alluding to
3:17:31 despite the fact that it doesn't
3:17:33 necessarily say anything about the book
3:17:35 not being distorted it's not it's just a
3:17:37 long explicit statement so you think
3:17:39 you're doing the simple reading that's
3:17:41 just the clear surface level reading of
3:17:43 the book and it's the obvious meaning
3:17:45 but no obviously that's not the case oh
3:17:48 how do you know
3:17:49 what do you mean how would I know
3:17:52 yeah we've been discussing it so you
3:17:54 just said yeah the this verse uh you
3:17:57 know means implies that they've changed
3:17:59 their books right
3:18:01 is that what you're saying
3:18:02 yeah it could be to imply that okay but
3:18:06 we just read the universe that where God
3:18:09 is saying you know is the crime is
3:18:11 confirming the books which they possess
3:18:13 so yeah and we've just disputed that and
3:18:17 I've disputed that so is there anything
3:18:19 I'm sorry you didn't dispute that you
3:18:21 know is there any contradiction in me
3:18:23 telling you that so if you have
3:18:25 something if you have a book that
3:18:27 carries within it meanings that I'm
3:18:28 affirming but I'm not affirming
3:18:30 everything in the book and I tell you
3:18:32 that the message I'm telling you is
3:18:34 affirmed by what you have in your hands
3:18:36 does that mean that I inform every part
3:18:38 of the book no so there's no
3:18:39 inconsistency you said why doesn't it if
3:18:43 God wanted he could be this person this
3:18:45 this book confirms some of what you
3:18:47 possess but yes and in the same way in
3:18:50 the other verse that I cited he could
3:18:52 have said you know you displace or
3:18:54 distort spoken words but don't put it in
3:18:57 the text so if you're looking for
3:18:58 specificity you need to look for
3:19:00 specificity on both sides this this
3:19:02 discussion we're having is not very this
3:19:05 isn't the way to go about understanding
3:19:07 these verses so this is a very like
3:19:09 superficial way with all due respect I
3:19:11 think
3:19:12 um I think yeah you know the Quran makes
3:19:16 it simple to understand and then you
3:19:18 guys are Complicated by saying oh we're
3:19:21 listening to such a scholar said this
3:19:23 and yeah I think it's simple and I think
3:19:25 you're the one complicating it it is uh
3:19:27 um I think Sam is it's a simple thing
3:19:30 this is what I don't understand
3:19:31 Christians believe the letters of Paul's
3:19:34 Paul are part of Revelation
3:19:37 yeah
3:19:39 yeah so obviously
3:19:43 but when the Quran now says refer to the
3:19:46 people of the scripture yeah or talks
3:19:48 about their scripture is not talking
3:19:50 about what they think is their scripture
3:19:52 it's talking about what is the actual
3:19:54 original scripture
3:19:57 so that's the same position we hold
3:19:59 which is that yes they're going to be
3:20:01 some aspects within the Torah or within
3:20:05 maybe some of the synoptic gospels which
3:20:08 have some um
3:20:11 Revelation for it yeah but was it when
3:20:13 the cross says it confirms their
3:20:15 scriptures yeah you know it passively
3:20:18 refers to the gospels and the Torah
3:20:19 right
3:20:22 but the whole point is is that what is
3:20:24 the gospels you're referring to the
3:20:26 synoptics nobody you think they mean
3:20:29 well that's not what Christian
3:20:31 ity
3:20:32 but I'm saying it doesn't matter what
3:20:34 Christians think
3:20:36 um
3:20:38 because the question is is what is it
3:20:42 that's being referred to okay
3:20:46 yeah so what is it is it is it
3:20:50 everything that the Christians claim no
3:20:52 mean you agree it's not everything
3:20:54 that's ever the Christians claim because
3:20:57 some of it is addition
3:20:59 which is then claimed to be Revelation
3:21:01 so we both hold the same position
3:21:05 right but I don't see white weather
3:21:08 honestly it sounds relationships
3:21:11 I I said I had some time but honestly
3:21:14 not not for this so if okay
3:21:17 no disrespect Sam thank you for coming
3:21:20 because you are just I don't understand
3:21:23 it you you guys destroying the what God
3:21:25 is saying yeah and you're so like
3:21:28 arguing with the Christians uh over
3:21:30 pointless things yeah and instead yeah
3:21:32 you should be like trying to find the
3:21:35 common ground but no you wanna I do I do
3:21:37 try to find colors
3:21:39 Christian friends and everything and
3:21:41 you're trying to convert them to Islam
3:21:44 yeah when the the Quran doesn't say yeah
3:21:46 you have to follow the Quran right yeah
3:21:49 the Quran allows the Jews to follow
3:21:50 their books and allows the Christians to
3:21:52 follow follow their books okay let's
3:21:54 agree to this story thank you thank you
3:21:56 Sam thank you
3:21:58 all right thanks bye
3:22:01 okay
3:22:03 you've got last word in that's cool
3:22:09 so we've got Muhammad Isam
3:22:14 we have him do that good good yeah
3:22:17 what guests we've got in the back chat
3:22:19 he's going to be the only guest that
3:22:21 we're going to have now
3:22:22 um
3:22:23 yeah but brother we have to meet the
3:22:25 other brother I sold him was going to be
3:22:27 quick but it ended up being longer than
3:22:28 we were expecting so we're gonna have to
3:22:31 let me get one question to be honest
3:22:32 sorry okay okay no problem uh my
3:22:35 question is regarding the Kalam
3:22:36 cosmological argument uh so the first
3:22:39 premise all things that began to exist
3:22:41 had a Cause uh is that premise arrive to
3:22:45 deductively or inductively
3:22:51 it says Okay so let's say inductively
3:22:54 you could say inductively or you could
3:22:56 say it's um
3:22:58 you could say it's an axiom or it's
3:23:00 known a priori or I mean they're
3:23:03 different positions on this but um right
3:23:05 what's the yeah yeah because my question
3:23:08 is
3:23:09 um I I feel like it conflates uh
3:23:11 causation like materialistic causation
3:23:14 within the universe to uh causation
3:23:17 outside the universe that
3:23:19 started the universe in the first place
3:23:21 no no it doesn't yeah like I I heard
3:23:24 many arguments like I listened to uh
3:23:26 brother Jake's uh stream with some other
3:23:28 guys that were making the same argument
3:23:29 and I really couldn't understand how
3:23:33 um like materialistic causation within
3:23:35 the universe we can infer that the
3:23:37 universe as a whole has a metaphysical
3:23:39 causation from what we arrived
3:23:41 inductively within the universe wait
3:23:43 what do you mean by metaphysical
3:23:44 causation uh
3:23:46 the causation that created material in
3:23:49 the first place
3:23:51 what do you mean by material this is
3:23:54 going to be yeah yeah so material
3:23:55 causation is just basically like it you
3:23:58 know like at a pool table one ball hits
3:23:59 the other that's the type of causation
3:24:01 we're talking about
3:24:04 um when we say things have a Cause
3:24:06 so like if a ball moves then it has a
3:24:10 cause which was a you know some sort of
3:24:13 materialistic explanation but when we
3:24:15 speak about the universe having a cause
3:24:18 in terms of beginning to exist that is a
3:24:20 metaphysical causation which has nothing
3:24:23 to do with materialistic causation no I
3:24:25 don't see the difference to be honest so
3:24:27 maybe you need to elaborate because the
3:24:29 the point of the the the point that
3:24:33 we're making an inference from might not
3:24:36 be what you're thinking so it might not
3:24:38 be that oh you know every material event
3:24:41 has a material cause therefore
3:24:47 every material event I've seen has uh
3:24:50 has had a material cause therefore every
3:24:53 event has a Cause
3:24:56 um
3:24:59 what argument though I mean uh the Kalam
3:25:02 cosmological argument the current
3:25:04 cosmological argument doesn't include
3:25:06 within it like at least not in a
3:25:08 standard form the argument for the first
3:25:10 premise I mean it's you can look at that
3:25:13 right right okay no I understand I
3:25:15 understand the argument is valid I'm
3:25:17 just uh speaking about the premise
3:25:18 itself I understand so so yeah that's
3:25:21 fine that's fine so what I'm saying is
3:25:22 there there are ways in which you can
3:25:25 like let's say so there are ways in
3:25:27 which you can make the inference where
3:25:29 what you're saying
3:25:30 might be valid but there are other ways
3:25:33 where no not necessarily why so if if if
3:25:37 the inferences that you know uh
3:25:42 for every material cause I've seen
3:25:44 there's been a material thing yeah if
3:25:46 that's what I'm basically you know
3:25:48 abstracting from my experience yeah then
3:25:51 then no then yes but then the common
3:25:54 aspect uh that I'd be abstracting is
3:25:57 basically
3:25:59 anything occurring having a preceding
3:26:02 cause
3:26:03 that kind of occurrence like you're
3:26:06 appealing to an axiom of causation
3:26:07 basically
3:26:09 you know this could this could this
3:26:11 could even be inductive it doesn't have
3:26:12 to be I'm telling you that what I'm
3:26:14 abstracting from my experience from uh
3:26:17 you know uh what occurs in the world it
3:26:21 doesn't have to be the specific
3:26:23 materiality of the occurrences the fact
3:26:27 that things that occur have prior causes
3:26:31 yeah but everything we do observe has
3:26:33 material causes right that's not that's
3:26:37 not the point yes yes but that's not
3:26:40 that why why does it why does the cause
3:26:43 have to be necessarily material like
3:26:45 there are
3:26:46 uh there are things that we observe that
3:26:50 we don't know yet we don't yet know the
3:26:52 cause for now you can assume the cause
3:26:54 of it is material but it doesn't
3:26:56 necessarily have to be the case but I
3:26:59 mean more specifically if if that's if
3:27:01 if what I'm saying if what I'm
3:27:03 abstracting from my experience is that
3:27:06 if all I'm abstracting is the fact that
3:27:08 okay material event material cause and
3:27:12 there is no notion whatsoever of a
3:27:15 causal principle that's broader than
3:27:18 that from my experience than what you're
3:27:20 saying would be right but I think that
3:27:21 from our experience if you're going to
3:27:24 say that it's experiential as an or it's
3:27:26 empirically based or inductive the the
3:27:28 causal principle I think the the the
3:27:30 what we abstract from our experience is
3:27:32 much broader than simply the the level
3:27:34 of specificity you're getting I I agree
3:27:36 I agree but what I'm trying to say is in
3:27:39 order to make that claim you have to
3:27:40 appeal to the Axiom of causation then
3:27:42 like in a metaphysical sense
3:27:45 no I don't think you do Abdullah man's
3:27:48 not saying that
3:27:49 you take one experience yeah and you see
3:27:52 that a causes B
3:27:53 yeah and you see that one something
3:27:55 begins to exist it has a cause you see
3:27:57 that one experience are you just got are
3:28:00 you as a human being going to abstract
3:28:02 from that that only that thing
3:28:06 that began to exist
3:28:08 had a cause or are you going to abstract
3:28:11 from that that things that begin to
3:28:12 exist have a cause you're not just going
3:28:15 to look at one thing are you that one
3:28:16 event yeah
3:28:22 you you see the black ball move so the
3:28:25 first event that you do you see the
3:28:27 black ball move when the white ball hits
3:28:29 it now you're not going to limit to that
3:28:31 event and say that only that event
3:28:35 is where the thing moves because of a uh
3:28:40 of something that caused it yeah
3:28:43 yeah what's that yeah yeah I said you're
3:28:46 going to inductively infer that all
3:28:48 other material objects are going to
3:28:49 operate no not material objects what I'm
3:28:51 saying is it because what you're doing
3:28:52 is you're doing what the empiricists do
3:28:54 which is say okay we're just going to
3:28:57 conclude based upon our very limited
3:29:00 observation and not abstract a general
3:29:02 principle from it
3:29:05 that's it but if you take the logic of
3:29:07 their argument they wouldn't be able to
3:29:09 abstract anything from their argument so
3:29:11 in essence it's the opposite you would
3:29:13 abstract that anything that begins to
3:29:16 exist as a cause and then to limit it to
3:29:19 material things you now need evidence
3:29:21 for that whereas you you wouldn't yeah
3:29:24 you wouldn't just simply say well I can
3:29:26 only say because it's conditionality of
3:29:28 of the evidence I want to understand
3:29:30 what you mean by abstract Concepts that
3:29:33 um we get from the world around us so do
3:29:35 you mean like
3:29:36 whatever we
3:29:38 um infer or inductively come to the
3:29:41 conclusion of here in our material or
3:29:43 imperial basically the general the
3:29:45 general typical that you're coming out
3:29:47 of physical the general principle that
3:29:49 you're coming up with from from from
3:29:51 experience or from like empirical data
3:29:53 or whatever just
3:29:54 um like induction basically so so let me
3:29:57 let me just explain this in a way that
3:29:59 would clarify so you're saying that from
3:30:01 our experience it's material things that
3:30:04 have material causes right and the the
3:30:09 the of the affected material and the
3:30:10 causes material but I could just
3:30:13 um if if
3:30:16 um assuming it can be arbitrary I could
3:30:18 just say that you know no it's
3:30:20 everything uh the thing all the things
3:30:24 that I've observed that have that are
3:30:25 effects they exist and their causes
3:30:29 exist so it's existence that I'm gonna
3:30:32 like you know pinned down as a category
3:30:34 that this applies to uh or I mean
3:30:37 whatever else like you could you could
3:30:39 like draw different lines all day long
3:30:41 yeah I could even apply to things within
3:30:44 the universe and it can even apply to
3:30:45 science because science right now deals
3:30:47 with a Quantum realm and all kinds of
3:30:49 spooky stuff so the point is that
3:30:52 no I mean that level of specificity that
3:30:56 we uh you know is not present in our
3:31:00 causal you know our intuitions about
3:31:03 causation yeah but I I understand the
3:31:06 the sentiment brother what I feel like
3:31:08 that kind of reasoning can shoot you in
3:31:11 the foot because you can apply that to
3:31:13 God himself I mean obviously like that's
3:31:15 what an atheist would say I see many
3:31:18 problems obviously with that lineup
3:31:20 like as a concept if you're saying
3:31:22 causation is this abstract concept that
3:31:25 we can like infinitely stretch to
3:31:28 Encompass even the metaphysical despite
3:31:30 it just being a concept that we have
3:31:32 things that begin to exist things that
3:31:33 begin to exist God doesn't begin to
3:31:35 exist
3:31:37 correct correct but you can spin it and
3:31:40 say the Yen the universe never began to
3:31:42 exist in the first place that's a
3:31:43 different argument completely yeah so
3:31:45 that's a different premise so right now
3:31:47 you're going to a different premise
3:31:49 you mean the second premise of the
3:31:51 Kalama yeah the universe began to exist
3:31:53 that's independent yeah okay
3:31:56 um yeah no I I agree then
3:31:59 um that as a concept then it can be
3:32:00 stretched
3:32:02 um okay okay I agree with that actually
3:32:04 but these are perfectly then in terms of
3:32:06 the second argument then how can you
3:32:08 affirm that the Universe began to exist
3:32:10 or the second parameter that's gonna
3:32:11 that's gonna it's good very there are
3:32:13 many ways
3:32:14 I mean there are many arguments uh for
3:32:19 um the just looking for example
3:32:22 competency argument uh
3:32:24 doesn't that kind of take you down the
3:32:26 route of the contingency argument
3:32:27 because it's going to be very conceptual
3:32:28 no understanding that the universe is
3:32:30 contingent so it had to it's it's not
3:32:34 necessary in a sense no I know they can
3:32:36 be too like independent arguments you
3:32:38 can I mean you can you could you could
3:32:40 you can talk about Infinities and
3:32:42 regresses and contingency arguments as
3:32:44 well but then you don't have to
3:32:46 necessarily like you know the arguments
3:32:48 don't necessarily over overlap so there
3:32:50 are many ways to argue for uh
3:32:54 whether it's a finite past or or a
3:32:57 finite causal past yeah the necessity of
3:33:02 finite causal chains but
3:33:04 um I think it'll take quite a while to
3:33:07 go into right now
3:33:08 there are some good discussions on
3:33:11 causal cynicism and probably one that's
3:33:14 coming up on our Channel very soon with
3:33:16 um
3:33:17 with a very distinguished Professor who
3:33:19 writes on the topic so um so maybe look
3:33:23 out for that one beautiful
3:33:25 okay guys thank you for your time
3:33:29 thank you
3:33:34 [Music]
3:33:36 all right
3:33:37 Pepsi guys
3:33:43 alhamdulillah I'm good thank you guys so
3:33:45 I had a question simple question but I
3:33:47 wanted to just say something fast if
3:33:49 that's okay it'll take like 10 15
3:33:50 seconds max if that's okay
3:33:52 yeah girlfriend all right thank you bro
3:33:54 so to address what that guy said so in
3:33:56 in bukhari 7523 it clearly says that
3:34:00 there have been people who added words
3:34:01 and distorted the text and said it's
3:34:03 from God right and as for the in jail
3:34:05 referring to the four Gospels it clearly
3:34:07 says that we give him the gospel with
3:34:10 guidance right in chapter 5 verse um 46
3:34:13 so the injil was given to the prophet
3:34:15 Isa not written by him by four men and
3:34:18 even without the Quran we know of many
3:34:20 corruption like the jahanian comma the
3:34:21 parikhip adultery the longer ending of
3:34:23 Mac Etc right so yeah that's the first
3:34:25 thing but yeah so my question to you was
3:34:27 inshallah um so regarding Allah's
3:34:30 attributes and and this is kind of like
3:34:32 a tough question but it's important as
3:34:34 well so regarding Allah's attributes
3:34:36 would we say that they're concrete or
3:34:37 abstract right so for example does Allah
3:34:40 act in virtue of his essence or abstract
3:34:43 attributes sorry
3:34:45 yeah
3:34:48 but just on the first part yeah
3:34:51 um yeah I think
3:34:53 we mentioned the point that the angel
3:34:55 was given to two Islam Jesus
3:34:59 and he accepted the fact that some parts
3:35:02 of the in jail in the New Testament in
3:35:05 the four synoptic gospels were were
3:35:08 revealed to Jesus and then some of it
3:35:10 was just talking about his life so it by
3:35:13 definition he's saying that there's some
3:35:15 corruption within it ah okay
3:35:18 by further implication is the fact that
3:35:20 you've got other aspects which are
3:35:22 considered part of the New Testament
3:35:23 like the letters of Paul exactly
3:35:27 yeah exactly so
3:35:30 whether he thinks that that part of
3:35:32 Revelation not not the point yeah the
3:35:34 point is Christians believe it's part of
3:35:36 Revelation but we don't believe it is of
3:35:39 course yeah of course so in that context
3:35:42 there's Distortion in their religious
3:35:44 beliefs I mean even when the gospels of
3:35:45 the discussion as well I mean a textual
3:35:47 critics as well so yeah so in terms of
3:35:51 your second part of your question uh
3:35:52 I've been just why'd you ask that
3:35:54 particular question yeah it's actually
3:35:56 good so it's kind of like yeah okay so
3:35:59 it's kind of I'll make it really short
3:36:00 story so uh I was online and there was
3:36:02 like some shias and Christians who
3:36:04 always ask like oh are God's attributes
3:36:06 distinct uh different and oh do you
3:36:09 believe that causally enact which is
3:36:10 abstract or do you believe they're
3:36:12 concrete so they're able to produce an
3:36:14 effect basically and I wasn't really
3:36:15 sure what to believe and I didn't want
3:36:16 to do something that would take me out
3:36:18 of Islam so I thought I'd come to you
3:36:20 guys who are knowledgeable inshallah
3:36:23 yeah I
3:36:25 find these questions to be totally
3:36:29 I don't know man I just
3:36:31 nonsense I agree I agree because because
3:36:35 when you think of attributes and you
3:36:37 when you think of a person a human being
3:36:39 let's say and you think of a person
3:36:41 being merciful and wrathful and just and
3:36:44 wise you don't think of them in terms of
3:36:47 physical components
3:36:49 yeah there's a part of you this part of
3:36:52 me is the mersey part that part of me is
3:36:53 the raffle part that part of me is a you
3:36:56 know you don't think like that yeah you
3:36:58 just think that the person has the
3:36:59 capacity the capability the attributes
3:37:02 to do these things any exercise that
3:37:03 according to his will
3:37:04 you know so it just but maybe
3:37:07 abdulrahman has a uh has a stronger
3:37:10 argument or more I really appreciate a
3:37:14 response I think that's not what I would
3:37:15 like if these people ask me this
3:37:17 question for the Shia Christian about
3:37:20 this other just so I said what kind of
3:37:22 nonsense question is that
3:37:24 yeah of course of course yeah
3:37:27 they never feel intimidated by these
3:37:29 guys when you ask these types of
3:37:31 questions that's the issue is that they
3:37:33 want you they want you to think oh yeah
3:37:35 it's an abstract entity if it's not is
3:37:37 it concrete and if it's concrete entity
3:37:38 does it mean to have independent
3:37:40 existence with Allah therefore you have
3:37:43 you know because this is just it's it's
3:37:47 speculation upon the the very nature of
3:37:49 Allah
3:37:50 in this area and trying to talk about
3:37:53 these these type of characters in these
3:37:55 ways when we don't we we know that it's
3:37:58 about exercising sorry I keep
3:38:01 interrupting him no no that's fine I
3:38:02 think that's a very important like you
3:38:04 know caveat going into the question
3:38:06 because a lot of these discussions
3:38:07 really do sound very uh convoluted and
3:38:10 unnecessarily speculative
3:38:12 so in certain contexts there's a meaning
3:38:15 to the question of course there's a
3:38:17 right and wrong answer but sometimes I
3:38:19 agree that the
3:38:21 the the endless speculation and uh and
3:38:26 the the endless uh you know confusion
3:38:28 people get into uh through these
3:38:30 questions are often because of just like
3:38:32 you know wrong starting points yeah um
3:38:35 the the question whether it's concrete
3:38:38 or abstract is basically a question of
3:38:40 whether God is uh simple or complex I
3:38:42 mean is that it's a it's that yeah it's
3:38:45 that simple uh you believe it's simple
3:38:48 right we don't believe that he's
3:38:51 no what do you mean okay depends on you
3:38:52 by simple yeah when you compose the
3:38:55 parts all that is problematic language I
3:38:57 wouldn't say anything yeah I know we
3:38:59 don't believe in absolute Divine
3:39:00 Simplicity of course but I mean by by
3:39:02 simple I mean simply is not composite it
3:39:04 is not composed of Parts it's not
3:39:05 contagious no yeah yeah yeah not
3:39:08 composed of course compose his language
3:39:10 simply I mean we don't use we don't
3:39:13 attribute to God but some people have a
3:39:15 philosophical usage of the word
3:39:18 that they would say oh no but but that
3:39:21 thing you're describing That's What I
3:39:23 Call composite well I mean okay I mean
3:39:25 that's your problem but then is there
3:39:28 any like rational argument or like you
3:39:31 know is there rational or scriptural
3:39:33 basis for us to say that um uh uh yeah
3:39:37 you're right there is a real problem of
3:39:39 believing this about God uh that's where
3:39:41 we claim no there's I mean so um
3:39:45 thinking of your question right so what
3:39:48 would it mean for God's um
3:39:50 power for example to be abstract you say
3:39:54 that yeah that God has power but but
3:39:57 that power like is not causally
3:39:59 efficacious in the sense that means in
3:40:02 what sense does he have power then yeah
3:40:03 so so yeah so that's a good question so
3:40:06 when I say that abstract so I mean like
3:40:07 they're mind independent right like
3:40:09 they're not purely conceived in the mind
3:40:10 so they would so when he acts something
3:40:13 it's purely in virtue of his Essence
3:40:15 right and this attribute would be a
3:40:16 descriptor of his Essence but not like
3:40:19 the ads people like we believe they're
3:40:20 man independent because if you say to
3:40:22 their concrete and the attribute is is
3:40:24 powerful in that you always attribute
3:40:26 power that seems problematic to me
3:40:28 because it's like he's he's dependent of
3:40:30 like he's purely it's like tools he's
3:40:31 using them as to produce no yeah okay so
3:40:35 but then there are so there are two
3:40:36 parts to that response the first part is
3:40:39 you're saying there you're saying
3:40:40 they're still mind independent but then
3:40:42 if you try to focus on what you're
3:40:46 really saying is it's that uh you're
3:40:49 calling them properties but they're
3:40:50 really not
3:40:51 I mean or maybe they are in some sense
3:40:53 but they're like created things it's not
3:40:55 like there's nothing that's like about
3:40:58 God right it's just every everything
3:41:00 you're saying is external to God you're
3:41:02 describing nothing about God himself
3:41:04 so it's how is it a description how are
3:41:06 you saying that it's a description of
3:41:08 the essence
3:41:10 yeah and at the same time you're saying
3:41:12 that uh it is
3:41:15 they don't like separate from the
3:41:18 essence in a sense like how how how is
3:41:20 that possible or how would you say that
3:41:23 they are all descriptions of the essence
3:41:26 yet these descriptions are identical in
3:41:29 some sense
3:41:31 I don't I don't know how you do that
3:41:33 this is the second thing you said go
3:41:36 ahead I'm gonna Source but I insert this
3:41:38 sorry you said you'll be dependent on
3:41:40 them or using them as tools or something
3:41:41 you know that that language is is that I
3:41:44 mean
3:41:46 you give me any kind of proposition or
3:41:48 belief or whatever and I can express it
3:41:50 in a language that just sounds
3:41:51 problematic it sounds like there's an
3:41:53 implicit argument in the way I'm
3:41:54 expressing it but it's just sounds it
3:41:56 just sounds bad but then just try to
3:41:58 break down the the uh reasoning behind
3:42:02 the claim and
3:42:05 um you see that doesn't it doesn't
3:42:06 really stand what does it mean for me to
3:42:10 use a property as a tool to do something
3:42:12 uh for uh um for many people in this
3:42:18 debate it doesn't even make sense to say
3:42:21 that you know there could be an essence
3:42:24 that's real describable in in real ways
3:42:28 uh that doesn't have properties it
3:42:32 doesn't it doesn't make sense I mean
3:42:34 because because really what are you
3:42:35 describing here yeah what does it mean
3:42:38 for
3:42:39 um
3:42:40 someone to be an agent and perform an
3:42:43 act
3:42:45 with no act subsisting in them so it's
3:42:47 like what does it mean for somebody to
3:42:49 know but them not having knowledge is
3:42:51 does that even make sense so if I say
3:42:54 you're gonna use Pepsi brother Pepsi he
3:42:56 knows
3:42:57 but he doesn't have knowledge that's
3:42:59 that's as meaningless as saying that he
3:43:03 has knowledge but he just doesn't know I
3:43:05 mean so um this is this is really the
3:43:08 issue here uh it's it sounds like where
3:43:11 you're gonna have to go with that is
3:43:13 that well um there really is this thing
3:43:16 that you know we're perceiving from like
3:43:18 the creature's perspective you don't
3:43:21 have to say it's mind dependent fine but
3:43:25 uh you at least have to say it's created
3:43:26 but the essence is Untouchable you're
3:43:29 not really describing really anything
3:43:30 about the essence or you're just you
3:43:33 know like so like everything I'm seeing
3:43:34 from Sharif right now all his properties
3:43:36 and stuff like that that's I'm not I'm
3:43:38 not that's not that's not Sharif that's
3:43:39 just like you know some things that
3:43:42 follow from sharif's nature but what is
3:43:44 their nature of stuff itself it's well
3:43:47 it's identical to like you know all of
3:43:49 these things I mean so
3:43:52 um
3:43:52 that doesn't really make sense
3:43:54 okay okay so why would it follow sorry
3:43:56 if you know I'm asking like it's related
3:43:58 it's related so why would the attributes
3:44:01 have to be created like if I was to
3:44:03 believe that the they themselves are
3:44:05 causally in it because it's the same
3:44:06 position as you who believe they're
3:44:08 concrete but if you do believe that I
3:44:10 don't want to strum on you but yeah so
3:44:11 why would it mean that they created
3:44:13 sorry
3:44:14 what what okay so then explain to me
3:44:16 what you mean by abstract properties
3:44:18 yeah
3:44:19 apologies yeah so by abstract they
3:44:21 simply mean they're unable to cause
3:44:23 right so they themselves are unable to
3:44:25 produce an effect right I don't believe
3:44:26 in causal dependence I believe in
3:44:28 counterfactual dependence uh between the
3:44:30 attributes okay so let's look at it this
3:44:32 way so so you say God has knowledge but
3:44:34 he he he doesn't know through his
3:44:37 knowledge
3:44:38 no no yeah so no no so the word
3:44:40 knowledge so basically I'll say I'll use
3:44:42 the word like power for example I think
3:44:44 that's a bit easier for me to understand
3:44:45 so the idea of God so God is powerful
3:44:48 not purely dependent upon the attribute
3:44:51 of power like he is not powerful in
3:44:53 virtue of that attribute power like that
3:44:56 that idea of power is simply a
3:44:58 descriptor of he himself in sentence
3:45:01 which is the attribute power is simply
3:45:04 the fact of him being powerful I mean
3:45:06 what what else is it no that's what I'm
3:45:08 saying yeah it's a description of him no
3:45:10 but that's what everybody said I mean
3:45:11 what oh yeah I mean that's that's the
3:45:15 issue uh so him being powerful means
3:45:18 he has power now if you're saying he is
3:45:21 powerful and he has power but his power
3:45:23 is not real now tell me what that means
3:45:25 he there's just an Essence about that
3:45:27 power that's not real
3:45:29 no but it is real though we believe that
3:45:31 it is real okay so he has power the
3:45:34 power is real
3:45:36 but uh he's not powerful through his
3:45:39 power is that yes so the simple
3:45:41 description powerful he is not powerful
3:45:44 dependent or in virtue of the attribute
3:45:47 like he does not need his power does not
3:45:49 come from the the description all
3:45:51 powerful basically
3:45:53 a robot that doesn't that's I think
3:45:55 that's like a contradiction in terms the
3:45:57 way I'm saying it's like so if I say you
3:45:58 have you have knowledge
3:46:00 and you know things but the fact that
3:46:03 you know things is not from your
3:46:03 knowledge it's from you I mean but but
3:46:05 the reason I said you have knowledge is
3:46:07 because you know things I mean yeah okay
3:46:09 yeah I get what you're saying now the
3:46:10 problem is the tricky language if you
3:46:12 need to be careful aware of is the whole
3:46:14 oh but he depends on it for that that
3:46:16 doesn't make sense it's not like some
3:46:18 kind of entity that that he depends on
3:46:20 that's like apart from him it's it is uh
3:46:24 um
3:46:25 by virtue of the fact that he is
3:46:27 powerful that we say he has power and
3:46:30 the that that uh thing you're calling a
3:46:32 tool is simply a necessary concomitant
3:46:35 of any kind of essence as in any Essence
3:46:38 is going to necessarily be describable
3:46:39 by certain things
3:46:42 um otherwise it's just not clear how
3:46:44 you're going to say so God is the
3:46:45 creator of The World God is the creator
3:46:47 of abdulrahman he's the creator of
3:46:48 Sharif he is merciful he he is
3:46:52 knowledgeable he all of that all these
3:46:54 predications you're making of God
3:46:55 however the the truth makers of these
3:46:58 predications and like you know the the
3:47:00 scriptures that are that are that are um
3:47:02 basically uh um making intelligible
3:47:05 these words that you're saying none of
3:47:08 them apply to God none of them are like
3:47:10 you know within God they're all just
3:47:13 outside of God I mean why like okay
3:47:18 okay yeah I'll respond one last time
3:47:20 before I leave because I know you guys
3:47:21 are limited in your time and I don't and
3:47:23 I'm taking a bit of your time so let's
3:47:25 super quickly do response so I'm
3:47:27 supposing that you believe that Concrete
3:47:29 in the sense that they're able to cause
3:47:31 they're able to produce effects if
3:47:33 that's the case then
3:47:36 oh yeah then would it not mean that
3:47:38 Allah uses his attributes to be powerful
3:47:41 or use his attributes to create because
3:47:43 that's my only issue with that belief
3:47:45 that's I don't again this is the way
3:47:47 you're expressing it it just sounds
3:47:48 troubling but then just try to break the
3:47:51 reasoning down and there's no real it's
3:47:53 almost as if okay so what what uh a
3:47:56 person's arguing like this really wants
3:47:57 to say is that there's some kind of a
3:47:59 dependency I mean what they would want
3:48:01 to say some causal dependency which I
3:48:03 don't think can be established as in
3:48:04 there's a cause that gave him the power
3:48:07 or something like that right yeah that's
3:48:09 of course false and that I don't think
3:48:10 that can be established and now what
3:48:12 they want to say again is that okay no
3:48:15 uh it there's dependency in the sense
3:48:18 that if his power didn't exist then he
3:48:21 wouldn't be powerful
3:48:23 but think of what that means really what
3:48:25 that really means is that
3:48:28 um if he wasn't powerful he wouldn't be
3:48:30 powerful
3:48:31 if you're taking you know the the if if
3:48:34 but the the the the the the the obvious
3:48:38 more the more obvious approach that
3:48:40 that's how we use a language and that's
3:48:41 how it relates to properties and things
3:48:43 and particulars that when we say
3:48:45 something is powerful it has power we
3:48:48 say someone is knowledgeable they have
3:48:49 knowledge so when someone comes telling
3:48:51 me tells me that oh wait you're powerful
3:48:53 so you're dependent
3:48:55 on your power in order to be powerful
3:48:59 what does it mean to be powerful other
3:49:01 than having power it just doesn't okay
3:49:03 there's no notion of dependency is going
3:49:05 to be like some kind of logical like
3:49:07 like just very broad counterfactual
3:49:09 dependence I mean you could say that if
3:49:11 God didn't exist he wouldn't exist I
3:49:13 mean fine yeah I get what you mean so
3:49:15 you do believe that concrete just
3:49:16 because that before I leave you do
3:49:17 believe that yes okay good thank you
3:49:19 thank you thank you thank you guys to
3:49:21 answer my question by the way concrete
3:49:23 no problem but some people misunderstand
3:49:26 because a lot of people hear the word
3:49:27 concrete and they think of like I don't
3:49:28 know like like a concrete like Street or
3:49:30 something or something physical or
3:49:32 concrete just means like causally
3:49:34 efficacious could you guys kick me or
3:49:36 something because it's not letting me
3:49:37 leave but thank you guys may all the
3:49:38 rewards you thank you
3:49:40 also the efficacious yeah
3:49:43 that's what you mean by
3:49:45 all right yeah I just think it's a
3:49:48 really the the type of questioning does
3:49:51 he know by virtue of his knowledge or by
3:49:54 virtue of his Essence it just I think
3:49:56 the question is just nonsensical doesn't
3:49:59 make any sense I I agree because like
3:50:02 you said I mean if you're gonna know
3:50:04 something you you've got knowledge
3:50:06 yeah
3:50:08 it's not you know alignments people like
3:50:11 that
3:50:12 very crazy uh okay Jamison has written
3:50:15 this I think we have to as IBN Tamir did
3:50:18 make a sharp distinction between parts
3:50:21 it's God's Essence is qualified with
3:50:23 attributes
3:50:25 he is not composed of parts
3:50:28 I think abdulrahman made the point
3:50:30 anyway so I think when people talk about
3:50:32 Sim divinely simple being they're
3:50:36 basically in their minds they are
3:50:37 thinking about you know you can't have
3:50:40 this being which is composed of other
3:50:43 you know sub beings yeah
3:50:46 um things like that so but yeah
3:50:56 so what what is the word composed mean I
3:50:59 mean even in Arabic like
3:51:02 it's the the language that is used I
3:51:06 don't think should like be accepted and
3:51:10 discussion like no I don't use that
3:51:11 terminology why because it quite
3:51:14 literally means he's been put together
3:51:16 uh uh not that there are multiple
3:51:19 aspects to this existence so so what do
3:51:23 you mean what do you mean by do you mean
3:51:25 that like it's something that's been was
3:51:27 a part and then got put together and
3:51:29 constructed well that's clearly false
3:51:32 well do you mean there are multiple real
3:51:34 aspects to it yeah so what I mean
3:51:36 there's an Essence and it has necessary
3:51:38 concomitants which are attributes what's
3:51:40 your argument there and you you're not
3:51:43 going to really get much from that apart
3:51:44 from uh arguments that are based on
3:51:47 certain metaphysical principles that
3:51:49 really don't like I mean at best they
3:51:51 don't have to be accepted and I think
3:51:53 more obviously they can be
3:51:54 straightforwardly shown to be false
3:51:57 yep
3:51:59 okay okay
3:52:04 100
3:52:07 I'm not good man I think there's a bit
3:52:08 of an echo
3:52:10 uh I'm on my phone I can't go on my PC
3:52:13 but
3:52:14 um
3:52:18 okay so my question was about Hadith so
3:52:24 I had a discussion with my uh my
3:52:27 brothers uh and we were not okay on a
3:52:30 subject about uh the age of the prophets
3:52:34 when he died
3:52:36 and okay they they basically
3:52:39 reject not reject the Hadith but they
3:52:42 say that uh it's not completely reliable
3:52:46 sorry in my English is not very good I'm
3:52:48 French so I try my best friend
3:52:53 okay no problem so no I don't
3:52:57 what I'm saying is that uh they showed
3:53:00 me some Hadith Hadith from bukhari a
3:53:03 Muslim and uh it showed different age it
3:53:07 shows I think this secret 3 65 uh
3:53:11 different age so uh they said that
3:53:14 because of that the methodology is can
3:53:17 be like flawed that there is mistakes in
3:53:20 it you know so that's I want you to
3:53:23 clear this doubt for me if it's possible
3:53:25 and inshallah please next time try to
3:53:28 take one question from each Muslims
3:53:31 because I know that there was like uh
3:53:34 um for non-muslims like I don't mind
3:53:36 normal seems to speak longer but I mean
3:53:38 you have to be fair Brothers I've been
3:53:41 waited for three hours my phone is
3:53:43 almost like uh he would like a shutdown
3:53:45 you know so
3:53:46 yeah yeah yeah to be honest side uh so
3:53:50 personally sticking around yeah uh I'm
3:53:54 gonna put your
3:53:55 thumbs a bit of an echo yeah sorry I
3:53:58 have feet there so so
3:54:00 um
3:54:02 so firstly
3:54:04 uh we're probably I don't know the
3:54:07 specific narrations in terms of uh those
3:54:10 narrations that you're referring to
3:54:12 maybe if we get brother for read on uh
3:54:15 or we can raise it with brother Farid
3:54:16 from freed response who has uh probably
3:54:19 looked into these in more detail
3:54:21 inshallah or can look into these in more
3:54:24 detail inshallah but let's just take a
3:54:26 broader view yeah when it comes to
3:54:28 Hadith Sciences there are three things
3:54:30 that I've Hadith is looking at in order
3:54:32 to verify the first one is to do with
3:54:35 the chains the second one is to do with
3:54:38 the uh reporters the ones who report the
3:54:41 Hadith and the third one is to do the
3:54:43 mutton so the mutter needs to do the
3:54:45 actual
3:54:46 yeah information that's being reported
3:54:49 in the hadithia
3:54:50 so in terms of the chains what the
3:54:53 Hadith is looking at is what how many
3:54:56 types of chains how many chains there
3:54:57 are the number
3:54:59 and whether the chain is complete or not
3:55:01 yeah does it reach to the Target yeah
3:55:05 does it reach to the sahaba or does it
3:55:10 reach to the prophet sallallahu alaihi
3:55:12 wasallam yeah
3:55:14 and similarly they're looking at the
3:55:15 number of chains as well so is it not
3:55:19 water so Mass transmitted is it which
3:55:24 means well known so it has numerous
3:55:25 chains but not reaching level of much
3:55:27 water is it Aziz which means it has two
3:55:31 at least two chains in it or is it ready
3:55:34 which means that there's only one person
3:55:36 at any more any point within that chain
3:55:39 here so as a single person it's not
3:55:42 reported by multiple chains assuming
3:55:44 they're also looking at in terms of
3:55:45 whether the brakes in the chains so is
3:55:48 it a break where the sahaba is omitted
3:55:50 or is it a break in the chain where uh
3:55:53 somebody else other than sahaba is uh
3:55:56 omitted or is it the case there is no
3:55:58 chain or is it the fact that they mixed
3:56:01 up the the reporters
3:56:04 were reported from another or that
3:56:06 there's a hidden defect in terms of the
3:56:08 fact that somebody's missing from a
3:56:10 particular chain so that's to do with
3:56:11 the other chain and then obviously you
3:56:13 got the issue of the rawi the one who
3:56:15 reports the Hadith and so you have
3:56:17 different classifications in terms of
3:56:20 the levels and I think uh according to
3:56:22 ibin hajr he had 12 different
3:56:25 classifications if memory serves me I'd
3:56:28 have to double check for the
3:56:30 classification of the the reporters who
3:56:33 put them into different categories yeah
3:56:36 uh top ones being like sahaba the the
3:56:39 truthful one the competent one Etc in
3:56:43 terms of this yeah and then the third
3:56:45 thing that they look at is uh the mutton
3:56:48 so if you've got two reports which are
3:56:51 of equal strength uh so two reports
3:56:54 which contradict but one report is of a
3:56:57 greater stretch than the other one than
3:56:59 the one with the greater strength it's a
3:57:01 report uh overrides the one uh with the
3:57:04 uh with the less strength yeah so that's
3:57:08 the way that that the Hadith science is
3:57:10 generally working it's very complicated
3:57:12 I've just gone over it very briefly in
3:57:14 terms of those three areas yeah the the
3:57:16 chain assessing the chain assessing the
3:57:19 narrators and also uh I did assessing
3:57:23 the mutton yeah the the what is being
3:57:24 reported as well and now there's
3:57:27 potential conflict or reconciliation
3:57:28 that needs to take place so saying that
3:57:33 when it comes to something which is like
3:57:35 considered sahih and it's sahih
3:57:38 according to something which has not
3:57:40 reached the level of motawata then the
3:57:43 scholars some scholars in fact it's
3:57:45 large proportion of Scholars say it is
3:57:48 true but there's still a potential
3:57:50 possibility that there may be some sort
3:57:53 of error within it yeah or can be a
3:57:55 potential mistake yeah even though it
3:57:58 might be very little or it's
3:58:02 whereas if it is impossible for there to
3:58:04 be an error it'd be classified as motor
3:58:06 water so some of the many of the Hadith
3:58:09 in bukhari would be considered
3:58:11 classified in the area of Ahad which is
3:58:13 not reached the level of motor water and
3:58:15 so you have to assess whether it's not
3:58:17 now in some aspects of that which is
3:58:20 classified as sahih what you'll find is
3:58:24 is that there'll be certain parts of the
3:58:26 report which are considered the sahih
3:58:29 report and there's some parts that in
3:58:31 the same mutton that may not necessarily
3:58:33 be categorized as being sahih so maybe a
3:58:36 case of the age is something which is
3:58:38 not necessarily
3:58:40 um definitive in that situation and that
3:58:43 to be honest it doesn't throw into the
3:58:46 Hadith all of the Hadith in question in
3:58:49 doubt that's primarily because the way
3:58:52 uh people used to identify people's ages
3:58:55 was not by counting the number of years
3:58:57 per se like today we have date of birth
3:59:00 whereas in the back in the time of the
3:59:02 of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi
3:59:04 wasallam they counted Time by events
3:59:07 whereas today we count events by time so
3:59:10 we say oh this happened in 1970 or this
3:59:13 happened in 1980 whereas they would say
3:59:16 this happened in the year of the
3:59:17 elephant or this person was born in the
3:59:19 year of the elephant or this happened
3:59:21 during the Hijra yeah Etc so
3:59:25 um
3:59:26 so it's not a problem in fact that there
3:59:28 may be a discrepancy in this area seeing
3:59:31 as this was not really the concern I
3:59:33 don't know if long-winded apologies but
3:59:36 hopefully that sort of uh helped explain
3:59:39 yeah
3:59:41 so I understood what you said but uh
3:59:45 what I mean is that um
3:59:47 so the engine itself is not an
3:59:50 affirmation that is very important in
3:59:53 the sense that it doesn't change
3:59:55 the way you practice Islam in your
3:59:57 everyday life like even if I know that
4:00:00 the prophet Muhammad is 63 or 65 when he
4:00:03 died doesn't change my prayer for
4:00:06 example you know so
4:00:09 um yeah so I understand the what to
4:00:12 explain about to mutawati Hadith Hadith
4:00:16 uh okay so it doesn't change uh the how
4:00:21 do we say that the strength of the
4:00:24 methodology of transmission of Hadith so
4:00:28 yeah yeah and you've got to remember
4:00:29 isn't it is that different
4:00:32 you different companions are going to
4:00:35 have different opinions
4:00:37 about the prophet sallallahu alaihi
4:00:39 wasallam's age
4:00:40 yeah they're going to have their own
4:00:42 opinion upon that
4:00:44 yeah so that what is being reported is
4:00:47 true about the opinion of the companion
4:00:50 now the companion can be right or wrong
4:00:53 in terms of knowing the age
4:00:55 what is being reported about the
4:00:57 companion can be completely true so one
4:01:00 companion could say the parts of them
4:01:02 died at 65 because he believed that's
4:01:04 his age another companion can say he
4:01:06 died at 63 because he believed that's
4:01:07 his age yeah so the both Innovations can
4:01:11 be absolutely true
4:01:13 yeah that this is what the companion
4:01:15 said but it's a case of the companion
4:01:17 was not sure or could potentially make a
4:01:20 mistake
4:01:21 does that make sense yeah okay I
4:01:24 understand
4:01:26 okay
4:01:27 so ceremony okay
4:01:31 so our final uh
4:01:34 our final guest is lucky Morgan
4:01:40 if he's still here yeah Assam
4:01:44 foreign
4:01:45 can you hear me yes we can hear you yeah
4:01:48 oh I'm not too loud am I no no it's fine
4:01:52 okay so basically my question was I'm
4:01:56 really sorry you guys have been going on
4:01:58 for so long I'll just be very quick
4:02:00 um so my question actually was uh in the
4:02:03 same way as the previous guys but um I
4:02:06 was actually considering more in the
4:02:09 with Oriental scholarship approach and
4:02:12 how they implemented uh revisionist
4:02:15 history
4:02:16 and I was actually wondering
4:02:18 that um why do Western scholars in
4:02:23 particular western western historians
4:02:24 but in particular not consider Muslim
4:02:27 sources as completely accurate
4:02:31 F I think this is a history reason that
4:02:34 is
4:02:36 there's a historical development of
4:02:40 orientalism and orientalism was born out
4:02:43 of this you know 19th century assumption
4:02:48 that the west and Europeans Were Somehow
4:02:51 civilized and Superior
4:02:54 and so when they studied other cultures
4:02:56 they studied it from the point of view
4:02:58 of undermining them
4:03:00 uh you know and you know looking looking
4:03:04 down upon them so they never really took
4:03:06 their position serious the other thing
4:03:08 is that Western academic uh you know I
4:03:12 was born out of sort of a a
4:03:15 judeo-christian environment and you know
4:03:19 we know that during sort of the pre- uh
4:03:23 Enlightenment uh period Christianity
4:03:26 didn't have the type of rigorous
4:03:28 approach towards authentication of
4:03:31 historical events as the Muslims had
4:03:33 like the it's not system
4:03:35 and so
4:03:37 they never really accepted it because
4:03:38 their tradition was a textual tradition
4:03:40 it was a way of trying to reconstruct
4:03:43 the original text by looking at
4:03:45 fragments of uh archaeological
4:03:48 discovered text to try to reconstruct
4:03:50 you know different fragments from
4:03:52 different time periods to reconstruct
4:03:54 what the original might look like
4:03:55 because they didn't have this chain of
4:03:57 narrators uh uh to to you know as a
4:04:01 science and so when they when they come
4:04:03 across it they came across it with their
4:04:05 biases and Prejudice that the West has a
4:04:07 superior academic approach second Lisa
4:04:10 they have a problem in terms of you know
4:04:12 how to assess textual criticism uh
4:04:15 because of their own history of of
4:04:17 trying to assess the Bible and the New
4:04:20 Testament and I think
4:04:23 but paid into how now they view Muslims
4:04:27 and the Islamic Sciences but saying that
4:04:29 what's really interesting uh look is
4:04:31 that
4:04:33 some of the mod
4:04:34 the philosophers today
4:04:37 um a mod a lot of them actually take
4:04:39 their argumentation directly or
4:04:42 indirectly from them in fact directly
4:04:45 you know Dr Ryan Mullins as an example
4:04:47 William Lane Craig and others they've
4:04:50 used a lot of the sort of the
4:04:52 scholarship from the Muslims
4:04:54 uh from the Orthodox Muslims that is and
4:04:58 use that to sort of justify some of
4:05:00 their positions that they hold today
4:05:02 um
4:05:03 philosophy they've taken pretty much
4:05:05 everything from Muslims and previous
4:05:07 civilizations so that's no question
4:05:09 you're as much part of the European uh
4:05:12 Western European civilization as much as
4:05:15 they think they are we have as much
4:05:17 right to it as well I understand the uh
4:05:28 for racism within Oriental scholarship
4:05:31 because that was its purpose yeah and
4:05:33 I'm not saying that all the people who
4:05:35 all the academics who came during that
4:05:37 period were racist but majority of them
4:05:40 were but my my contention basically lies
4:05:43 here that if you look at modern Scholars
4:05:47 like right now uh like uh if you
4:05:51 um I'm sure you know about Fred Donner
4:05:53 he's very popular with his history of
4:05:57 Islam and his propositions on how Islam
4:06:01 came about and I I was actually
4:06:03 listening to one of his lectures that he
4:06:05 was giving in Indonesia
4:06:07 and he was like somebody asked him a
4:06:09 question in the audience and they were
4:06:10 like um
4:06:12 now that Muslims are open to the
4:06:14 accepting the idea that their Hadid
4:06:15 literature cannot be verified uh outside
4:06:18 of the Hadith literature itself like
4:06:21 there are no external sources about the
4:06:23 prophet saws life so how how do you how
4:06:27 are people viewing you now and he said
4:06:30 something with that really interested me
4:06:33 in a way because he said that people are
4:06:35 now open to Muslims he's talking about
4:06:38 Muslims and he's saying that Muslims are
4:06:40 now open to the idea that their history
4:06:42 might not be completely accurate and I
4:06:44 was just thinking that why is this
4:06:46 person saying that in a Muslim country
4:06:48 where Muslims have apparently invited
4:06:51 him to teach them about their history
4:06:53 when Western scholarship has never been
4:06:55 honest about the contributions of the
4:06:57 Muslim civilization to all of the
4:07:01 Renaissance period or whatever you want
4:07:03 to take but I was just wondering why do
4:07:05 we take these Scholars more seriously
4:07:08 than our own and that's that's an
4:07:10 approach that if you see in many Muslim
4:07:13 majority countries our education system
4:07:15 is based on the British education system
4:07:18 and we don't learn about our own history
4:07:22 yeah so yeah it's a bit it's a big topic
4:07:24 but obviously in terms of in terms of
4:07:26 external verification firstly you know
4:07:29 the whole purpose of the Hadith
4:07:31 preservation and Sciences was about
4:07:32 trying to establish some sort of
4:07:35 objective standard by which you can be
4:07:37 assured uh with regards to the
4:07:41 historical accuracy of what's being
4:07:42 reported that was the whole purpose of
4:07:43 it and there are certainly external
4:07:45 things that you can use for example
4:07:47 externally you can use
4:07:50 um
4:07:51 evidences of uh the like for example the
4:07:54 Hijra of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi
4:07:55 wasallam his journey from Mecca to
4:07:57 Medina yeah and the descriptions of That
4:08:00 journey and the and where Mecca is
4:08:02 geographically located when Medina's
4:08:04 geographically located the Hadith about
4:08:07 the description of the different climate
4:08:09 of Mecca compared to the climate of
4:08:11 Medina yeah so we we know that there is
4:08:14 is less hot in Medina according to
4:08:18 Hadith and also according to geography
4:08:21 as well and the fact that it's more
4:08:23 fertile it's more has an agricultural
4:08:25 base again we've got external evidence
4:08:27 of that we've got external evidence for
4:08:30 the fact that the different cities exist
4:08:31 like butter craber you can go to the
4:08:34 ruins of Haber yeah where the the battle
4:08:37 took place to you know to take the
4:08:39 fortresses of Heber you can actually see
4:08:41 the what the way that they're built as
4:08:44 well so what the Hadith literature is
4:08:46 describing can be independently verified
4:08:48 we even have for example the Hadith
4:08:51 about ali wasallam uh his his the son
4:08:56 Ibrahim how he was his janaza was on the
4:09:00 same day as an eclipse of the Sun so we
4:09:03 can actually go and look at you know the
4:09:06 uh astronomical data and see when
4:09:08 whether there was a solar eclipse that
4:09:10 took place and would be able to would
4:09:12 have been visible uh in the Arabian and
4:09:14 peninsula in Medina at this particular
4:09:16 period and we've got that so we've got
4:09:17 the evidence for that so there's a lot
4:09:19 of external evidences that support the
4:09:21 Hadith literature
4:09:22 it's not just uh what these guys are
4:09:24 saying including the fact that
4:09:27 Hadith literature talks about the
4:09:30 preservation of the Quran and how the
4:09:32 Quran was fixed as a particular text and
4:09:35 what we're now finding with more and
4:09:36 more discovery of textual fragments of
4:09:39 the quranic text and we have I think it
4:09:42 was it over 95 of all of the Quran from
4:09:46 the first century of Islam that all of
4:09:49 it fits within the narrative that Islam
4:09:52 uh the Hadith literature talks about in
4:09:54 terms of its preservation so
4:09:57 there's a lot of external evidence
4:09:59 archaeological evidence
4:10:01 and geographical evidences that support
4:10:04 Hadith literature in fact there's one
4:10:06 brother he's recently did a master's
4:10:08 thesis upon the archaeological evidences
4:10:10 of early Islam in the Arabian Peninsula
4:10:13 and this was in response to a historian
4:10:15 called Tom Holland who tried to claim
4:10:17 that Mecca and Medina oh I I've heard of
4:10:21 him
4:10:22 I was like when I heard to his thesis I
4:10:25 was like why did you even bother writing
4:10:27 your book because Patricia Cronin has
4:10:28 done that already and you have not put
4:10:30 anything new forward in it so why are
4:10:32 you in bother it was like it was such a
4:10:35 revisionist approach I was like it's
4:10:36 like Patricia Crone is back
4:10:39 yeah no that's right and and and so this
4:10:43 this brother who did a master's thesis
4:10:44 he went and he he because what we don't
4:10:48 realize and this is not well known and
4:10:50 well publicized but there's a lot of
4:10:51 archaeological evidence in Saudi Arabia
4:10:53 that that looks at early Islam so for
4:10:56 example there's Wells uh in and around
4:10:59 Mecca or
4:11:00 um or the hijaz region anyway were
4:11:03 inscribed uh etched in stone on the side
4:11:07 of the wells are the names of companions
4:11:09 or the children of companions yeah so
4:11:11 they give the lineage so they'll say
4:11:13 search and search son of such and such
4:11:15 son of such and such going or you know
4:11:17 significant way back but it also shows
4:11:21 that some of those people were
4:11:22 inscribing were children of the
4:11:24 Companions and those names are also
4:11:26 recording the Hadith literature and in
4:11:28 fact inside the Kaaba itself that's
4:11:31 right there are basically etched into
4:11:34 the inside of the walls names of
4:11:36 Companions and names of the children of
4:11:38 the companions which was written during
4:11:40 the time of the Companions and in fact
4:11:42 somebody even say during the time of the
4:11:44 poet Salem himself in the in the inside
4:11:46 of the Carver as well so there's lots of
4:11:49 evidence archaeological evidence like
4:11:50 this that exists within uh within uh
4:11:54 Saudi Arabia today but um so yeah so it
4:11:58 just it doesn't make any sense to these
4:11:59 guys so yeah so we have this
4:12:01 um I think to be honest a lot of the
4:12:04 Sciences in terms of these like Hadith
4:12:06 and uh these independent ways to verify
4:12:10 the Hadith I think that relatively new
4:12:12 in Western Academia anyway they're not
4:12:14 really engaged in that much and there's
4:12:17 still this this hang up of this any uh
4:12:20 you know this sort of racist uh view
4:12:23 about Muslims
4:12:25 I think it's a huge shame because
4:12:28 um I feel like
4:12:29 from coming from my own perspective
4:12:31 because
4:12:33 I used I did at one point leave but
4:12:38 I I was um once I started looking into
4:12:41 these things I was like it's such a
4:12:42 shame because many Muslims especially
4:12:45 amongst the youth they have such a huge
4:12:49 such a major info inferiority complex
4:12:52 and I feel like if we actually knew
4:12:55 about our history the way our caliphates
4:12:58 were built the way they were operating
4:13:01 we wouldn't even be so enamored by these
4:13:04 Western civilizations because they they
4:13:07 fail in comparison yeah yeah and that
4:13:10 goes back to the other question which
4:13:12 was about you know why are we allowing
4:13:14 these people to come in what's happened
4:13:16 to us uh education system all these
4:13:19 things and obviously in the Muslim world
4:13:21 now it's just basically a product of
4:13:22 post-colonialism colonialism has
4:13:24 happened colonialism happened
4:13:27 colonialism and then now we've got
4:13:29 neocolonialism yeah so we've got this
4:13:31 idea that they still influence our land
4:13:33 even though they've uh you know
4:13:35 physically quote unquote left and
4:13:37 obviously this occurred during
4:13:39 post-related
4:13:41 uh so we were living in that period and
4:13:44 and so they reconstructed and
4:13:46 restructured our education system as
4:13:48 well as the politics and the economics
4:13:50 and they did that purposely in order to
4:13:52 try to present
4:13:56 education system was one of the best in
4:13:59 its time yeah yeah that was the beaches
4:14:02 of a Muslim identity because we not only
4:14:04 learned about the Sciences we learned
4:14:06 about Islam as well
4:14:08 and we they separated that with their
4:14:11 secular education ideals and then we are
4:14:14 here now yeah but anyways thank you so
4:14:17 much sorry for taking up so much of your
4:14:19 time I appreciate it I'm very very
4:14:22 grateful to you guys because you have
4:14:24 helped people like me a lot so thank you
4:14:27 so much
4:14:30 that is
4:14:33 sorry
4:14:37 okay man that's it man no more guess
4:14:40 are you still there
4:14:44 but yeah so while uh
4:14:48 you're there yeah I was wondering it was
4:14:51 brother's side
4:14:52 we've had said he came and went he had a
4:14:56 question about uh the Hadith
4:14:59 okay okay all right
4:15:02 but yeah
4:15:04 but yeah
4:15:06 and she's actually care for the audience
4:15:08 for sticking around for a good four
4:15:10 hours 15 minutes
4:15:12 uh hopefully uh people have appreciated
4:15:15 the discussion some of it
4:15:18 it's open to laugh even what we are
4:15:20 saying here today yeah so
4:15:23 um and you don't get uh
4:15:26 told the enamored that there's only one
4:15:28 particular view on one particular issue
4:15:30 there may be a variety of views on uh on
4:15:34 one issue
4:15:35 um and some of the high level
4:15:38 theological speculative issues that are
4:15:40 discussed they can have multiple views
4:15:42 potentially it's not necessarily the
4:15:44 case that there is only one particular
4:15:45 view so long as the the red lines are
4:15:49 not crossed yeah so as long as some key
4:15:52 issues are not crossed like for example
4:15:54 making Allah creation or denying the
4:15:57 fact that Allah has certain you know
4:16:00 capabilities even if you don't like the
4:16:02 use of the word attributes capability to
4:16:04 choose to create
4:16:06 Etc so
4:16:08 um but yeah so inshallah uh hopefully
4:16:11 enjoy will be more
4:16:13 um more regular for our frequent streams
4:16:17 what we got planned you you know what
4:16:19 we've got planned don't you
4:16:31 that person to talk about the philosophy
4:16:33 of science
4:16:35 yes but that's gonna be delayed I mean
4:16:38 that should have been uh the should have
4:16:40 been the 19th
4:16:42 um that's with Dr Kane Baker okay yeah
4:16:47 because of uh yeah there's some stuff
4:16:50 going on on my end
4:16:51 so uh This is Gonna lead to possibly
4:16:55 late December
4:16:57 but one maybe one very exciting
4:16:59 announcement we can make is that uh very
4:17:03 soon we're going to have brother Jamie
4:17:05 Turner on
4:17:07 the regarding you know discussions about
4:17:10 the futra and stuff like that that's uh
4:17:13 that should be a very interesting one he
4:17:15 was he was listening earlier I don't
4:17:17 know if he's still here but yeah yeah uh
4:17:19 until that should be very soon
4:17:22 inshallah they'll be exciting uh
4:17:26 discussions have uh
4:17:29 um
4:17:30 I'm gonna have to try and work it out to
4:17:32 end this stream now
4:17:35 one more thing because people have
4:17:37 because when I said that you know top
4:17:39 philosophers gonna come well not um
4:17:42 people have been wondering what it was
4:17:43 and I've been saying it's about causal
4:17:45 fanaticism
4:17:46 so that's Professor Robert Coons but uh
4:17:50 unfortunately something came up on his
4:17:52 end so he has to take care of that and
4:17:54 it's going to postponed uh possibly
4:17:57 sometime in December but we will let
4:17:59 everybody know when that's confirmed
4:18:00 itself so that's Robert Coons inshallah
4:18:03 who's uh atheist Christian but also he
4:18:08 writes a lot on the issue of
4:18:09 causalphinitism to this idea that a
4:18:12 series of causes has to have a beginning
4:18:15 so yeah inshallah hopefully we'll have
4:18:17 him on where we can discuss uh he was
4:18:20 like like abdulrahman said he was meant
4:18:22 to come in in November but uh something
4:18:26 personal issue came up he couldn't make
4:18:28 it so hopefully inshallah be in December
4:18:31 now uh but yeah
4:18:33 so Jose and uh watch out for
4:18:36 abdulrahman's uh
4:18:38 he's gonna be coming out soon
4:18:43 so ensure that that should be coming
4:18:46 soon uh but yeah so hopefully that's uh
4:18:51 that's our stream done and uh hope the
4:18:53 next time I'm sure we'll have uh brother
4:18:55 Jake on him who couldn't make it this
4:18:57 time but hopefully it'll come on again
4:19:00 foreign

Open Q and A #2 - Bring Your Questions (non Muslims preferred) (2022-11-20) ​

Description ​

Summary of Open Q and A #2 - Bring Your Questions (non Muslims preferred) ​

00:00:00 - 01:00:00 ​

01:00:00 - 02:00:00 ​

02:00:00 - 03:00:00 ​

03:00:00 - 04:00:00 ​

04:00:00 - 04:15:00 ​

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

Open Q and A #2 - Bring Your Questions (non Muslims preferred) (2022-11-20)

Description

Summary of Open Q and A #2 - Bring Your Questions (non Muslims preferred)

00:00:00 - 01:00:00

01:00:00 - 02:00:00

02:00:00 - 03:00:00

03:00:00 - 04:00:00

04:00:00 - 04:15:00