Islamic Revival

Appearance

On this page

The Review: A Case for God with Alex Malpass (2021-11-29) ​

Description ​

Thought Adventure Support â—„ PayPal - https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=6KZWK75RB23RN â—„ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/ThoughtAdventurePodcast/join â—„ PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/thoughtadventurepodcast

Thought Adventure Social Media ◄ Twitter: https://twitter.com/T_A_Podcast​​ [@T_A_Podcast] ◄ Clubhouse https://www.clubhouse.com/club/thought-adventure-podcast ◄ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7x4UVfTz9QX8KVdEXquDUC ◄ Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/ThoughtAdventurePodcast ◄ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ThoughtAdventurePodcast​

The Hosts: ----------------------| Jake Brancatella, The Muslim Metaphysician

----------------------|

Yusuf Ponders, The Pondering Soul

----------------------|

Sharif

----------------------|

Abdulrahman

----------------------|

Admin

Riyad Gmail: hello.tapodcast@gmail.com

Summary of The Review: A Case for God with Alex Malpass ​

This summary is AI generated - there may be inaccuracies. *

00:00:00 - 01:00:00 ​

Alex Malpass argues for the existence of God using the principle of sufficient reason. He says that God exists because there is no reason why he should not exist, and that this is a contradiction of the idea that God sometimes exists and sometimes does not.

**00:00:00 ** atheist Alex Malpass debates fellow atheist Jake Turner. Turner introduces Malpass and explains that he is a world-renowned academic and author of articles on the arguments for theism. Malpass responds by outlining his arguments for atheism. The discussion is contentious at times, with Malpass challenging Turner's understanding of various atheist arguments. Towards the end of the video, Malpass explains that he invited Jake and other brothers to participate in the discussion but they did not make the cut.

  • **00:05:00 ** In a three-and-a-half-hour discussion with atheist philosopher Alex Malpass, Malpass argues that theist can be rationally justified in their position that god exists. Malpass points to examples of reasonable disagreement and argues that a theist can be justified and rational in their position.
  • **00:10:00 ** Alex Malpass discusses the example of hamburgers eating people, contrasting it with theism. He then suggests that theists have a greater burden of proof than atheists, pointing to prolific evangelizing as evidence. Abdulrahman makes a similar point.
  • **00:15:00 ** The atheist characters in the YouTube video "The Review: A Case for God" have been doing this for "plenty of years," and their goal is to promote atheism to the public and secularism. Alex Malpass thinks this is a "strange thing to argue," and argues that regardless of who is evangelizing, both theist and atheist must justify their positions to themselves. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Alex Malpass have all debated different atheists.
  • **00:20:00
  • Discusses a philosophical argument, and Alex Malpass speaks about how he struggles with a particular approach to trying to come to a conclusion - that of trying to convince someone of his position by directly attacking their arguments. He says that this approach often comes across as dishonest, because the person isn't actually willing to consider the argument itself, but is only trying to discredit it.
  • **00:25:00 ** Alex Malpass presents his case for God in a YouTube video. He argues that it is not a logical impossibility to form an "actual infinite," and that atheists should be skeptical of any arguments that they cannot understand. He also discusses the debate he had with William Lane Craig on the subject.
  • **00:30:00 ** Alex Malpass argues that, since there is never a point at which one can say they have traversed an "actual infinite" by successive addition, there is no point in discussing the existence or non-existence of an "actual infinite." He also points out that there are different types of actual infinites, and that even if one concedes that an "actual infinite" is a logically possible concept, it is still metaphysically impossible.
  • **00:35:00 ** provides a review of Alex Malpass' argument against the existence of an actual infinite by successive addition. Malpass argues that the sentence "you will have" is logically impossible, because it assumes that you will have reached an actual infinite. However, he concedes that you can have an actual infinite, if you assume the theory of time.
  • **00:40:00 ** , Alex Malpass argues that there is no symmetry between starting to count and going into the future, to the past, and coming to the present because there is a "symmetry breaker." He concedes that you can't end an "endless series" but says that "in actual fact it would be a case where there's no beginning but that it ends and there's nothing contradictory about that."
  • **00:45:00 ** Alex Malpass argues that there is no answer to the question of why God exists, but that nonetheless God exists because of the "sufficient reason" principle. He says that God would finish counting down to aleph null if he had always been counted down, but that this is contradicted by the fact that God has already counted an infinite amount of numbers.
  • **00:50:00
  • Discusses the contradiction between the idea that God always exists and the idea that he sometimes exists and has an end. Alex Malpass pointed out that the responses given by the person in the chat were contradictory, and suggested that this might be because the person is counting from a finite point.
  • **00:55:00 ** Alex Malpass discusses the problem of the Psr, or "person's always counting" theory of time. He argues that this theory is arbitrary and does not make sense. Another brother brought the same objection to him, and he found the argument in the literature.

01:00:00 - 02:00:00 ​

Alex Malpass discusses the problem with the argument for an infinite causal chain and how the solution is that there is not an infinite causal chain. He also discusses how the concept of free will is not necessitated and can be explained without recourse to a God.

**01:00:00

  • Discusses the argument between Alex Malpass and Craig Evans over whether counting down from infinity is a violation of a weak psr. Malpass argues that it is, and Evans counter-argues that there is a partial explanation. Malpass argues that there is no real distinction between the moments of counting, and Evans points out that an infinite number of numbers has already been counted at any point in the infinite past.
  • **01:05:00 ** argues that the count of numbers that are in the past is potentially infinite, and that the same holds true for the count of numbers that have already been elapsed. It points out that this would contradict the idea that the past is a finite entity, and that this problem can be solved by allowing for a beginningless past.
  • **01:10:00 ** Alex Malpass discusses the possibility of an "actual infinite" and how it is not a logical impossibility. He also discusses causal finitism, which he believes is a respectable solution.
  • **01:15:00 ** Alex Malpass argues that there is a problem with the argument for an infinite causal chain because it is logically impossible. He argues that the solution to the paradox is that there is not an infinite causal chain, but something is wrong with the setup.
  • **01:20:00 ** philosopher Alex Malpass discusses with Joe Smith why he believes causal finitism is the best solution to the Bernadette paradoxes. Malpass argues that while the paradoxes are based on faulty thought experiments, causal finitism solves them without committing to any metaphysical theories about space and time.
  • **01:25:00 ** Alex Malpass says that some scenarios that seem to lead to a contradiction are not conceivable, and that this is the problem with the grim reaper paradox. He argues that the problem is not with infinity, but with the combination of infinity and the grim reaper.
  • **01:30:00 ** Alex Malpass discusses how the conceivability principle can help determine whether or not an actual infinite exists by successive edition. He argues that if the conceivability principle is applied, then the theory of modality must also be applied in order to determine if possible worlds exist.
  • **01:35:00 ** Alex Malpass argues that all contingent propositions require an explanation, and that this can only be done if there is a necessary being. He goes on to argue that, if there is a necessary being, then atheism is impossible because it would require accepting a brute contingency. He claims that van Nugen's strong PSR argument leads to modal collapse, in which every fact has an explanation for why it is and why it is not something else.
  • **01:40:00
  • Discusses the idea that a necessary explanation does not necessitate the outcome it explains. Alex Malpass argues that free will is a necessary explanation for the continued universe, and therefore necessitates a god.
  • **01:45:00 ** Alex Malpass discusses the concept of free will and its relation to libertarian free will. He argues that free will exists as an experience within human beings, and that an ultimate explanation for why a certain choice was made exists. He goes on to say that this explanation is not deterministic, and that the concept of free will is necessary for a meaningful understanding of the universe.
  • **01:50:00 ** philosopher Alex Malpass argues that free will is not necessitated and can be explained without recourse to a God. He provides an example of a person choosing between two options, one of which is contingent on a prior decision made by another person. Malpass argues that this example does not require an explanation outside of the person making the choice, and that the existence of a necessary being - such as God - does not necessitate the existence of free will.
  • **01:55:00 ** Dr. Alex Malpass discusses the idea of libertarian free will and how it is incompatible with causality. He also points out that the concept of libertarian free will does not require a further explanation because it is built upon the idea of a free world.

02:00:00 - 03:00:00 ​

Alex Malpass discusses contingency and how it relates to necessary vs. contingent explanations. He argues that all concrete things are contingent because in the actual world they don't always require an explanation. He then goes on to say that if God is causal, then there must be an infinite series of contingent things, which is implausible.

**02:00:00 ** Dr. Alex Malpass discusses contingency and how it relates to necessary vs. contingent explanations. He then goes on to say that while a necessary thing doesn't have an explanation in the sense that it doesn't need one, it still has an explanation in the sense that it doesn't need one to be effective.

  • **02:05:00 ** Alex Malpass discusses the argument for God, asserting that all concrete things are contingent because in the actual world they don't always require an explanation. He argues that this principle leads to the conclusion that all humans are contingent, which is aproblem because it would mean that there is no necessary human.
  • **02:10:00 ** Alex Malpass discusses the problems with arguments for God based on experience. He argues that experience cannot be used to justify God, because experiences can be contingent and concrete. Furthermore, if God is causal, then there must be an infinite series of contingent things, which is implausible. Finally, Malpass argues that if abstract things are simply physical agents, then they cannot be abstract.
  • **02:15:00 ** Alex Malpass discusses the argument from contingency, which states that something is contingent if it is possible but not necessary. He argues that the psr, or "possible-only principle," cannot be assumed a priori, and that it is not sufficient to determine what is possible. He also critiques the brother who came on the stream and claimed that philosophy is a waste of time.
  • **02:20:00
  • Discusses a case for God with Alex Malpass, and discusses how Malpass contradicted himself in the discussion.
  • **02:25:00 ** , philosopher and author Alex Malpass argues that concrete existence is necessary for any possible world to exist. Malpass also explains that this necessity comes from his Aristotelian understanding of possible worlds.
  • **02:30:00 ** The presenter argues that the strong principle of psr (every contingent event strongly explains the next one) is true, and that if this is the case, then nothing is unexplained. He then asks his brother if he believes in strong psr, to which he responds that he does not believe in it himself but is using the argument for the purposes of arguing against the success of the contingency argument.
  • **02:35:00 ** reviews Alex Malpass's arguments for and against the strong PSR, and finds that Malpass has shifted his position on the strong PSR. Malpass now admits that the whole of contingent reality is not explained, and that this leaves contingent facts unexplained. He argues that self-explanation is incoherent, and that the explanation for contingent reality must be necessary.
  • **02:40:00 ** Alex Malpass breaks down a philosopher's argument for God in a way that is easier to understand. He points out that the philosopher's argument is based on a strong psr, which states that everything, including contingent reality, is explained by an intelligent relation. Malpass argues that this is impossible, as there would be no contingent logical consequence of a necessary truth. He then argues that the philosopher's argument is based on a false psr, in which everything is necessary. In the end, Malpass argues that the philosopher's argument fails because it cannot chart a course between these two options.
  • **02:45:00 ** Alex Malpass discusses the two positions he previously defended - the strong principle of necessitation and the beginningless chain - and how he has now come to accept the third option, which is contingent reality is explained by the conjunction of all individual explanations. He argues that this view is more consistent and plausible than the strong principle of necessitation.
  • **02:50:00 ** philosopher Alex Malpass argues that the view that there is something rather than nothing is better explanation than the view that does not explain why there is something. He also argues that the view that posits a necessary being is stronger than the view that does not posit a necessary being.
  • **02:55:00 ** Alex Malpass discusses why it is that there is something rather than nothing, and why necessary abstract objects exist. He argues that if certain premises of the "necessary being must have an ontological account for its existence" argument are accepted, then it is reasonable to posit a necessary reality to explain why there are contingent realities.

03:00:00 - 04:00:00 ​

"The Review: A Case for God with Alex Malpass," Malpass discusses how one can have a simple or complex theory of God, depending on how one defines "necessary thing." He goes on to say that there is a tension between the positions he holds, and that he will have to try to make it work.

**03:00:00 ** Alex Malpass discusses the existence of abstract things, and how they can exist independently of concrete existence. He argues that, on an Aristotelian view, there is a possible world in which no concrete objects exist. When asked whether this means that something concrete is necessary, Malpass responds that, on this view, something concrete is necessary because abstract things exist only if they are exemplified in a particular concrete object.

  • **03:05:00 ** Alex Malpass argues that, because concrete existence is necessary, there always has to be something that exists. This is similar to the view that material things are necessary, which is in line with the view of Taemian philosopher Ibn Taymiyah that all things are necessary because they are in causal relations. However, Malpass argues that this view is still insufficient, as it leaves out the existence of God.
  • **03:10:00 ** , Alex Malpass discusses how one can have a simple or complex theory of God, depending on how one defines "necessary thing." He goes on to say that there is a tension between the positions he holds, and that he will have to try to make it work.
  • **03:15:00
  • Discusses the idea that there could be a necessary "natural" thing that is greater than any "necessary" thing with the mind, and that these two concepts are not equal. It goes on to discuss how this necessitates a greater explanation, and argues that consciousness, fixed patterns within nature, and the idea of design all add extra explanatory power to the idea of a necessary natural thing.
  • **03:20:00 ** Alex Malpass agrees that there must be a necessary being, but argues that the contingency argument is stronger than the argument for the necessary being. He also argues that the infinite sequence of things creates metaphysical commitments that require explanation.
  • **03:25:00 ** Alex Malpass discusses the difference between an "actual infinite" and a "sequential infinite" in relation to the kalam cosmological argument. He argues that the issue is removed because you assume a reference point when discussing an arbitrary point in time.
  • **03:30:00
  • Discusses the idea of an "eternal universe," and how it is arbitrary where one chooses to place the reference point. Alex Malpass argues that, while it is logically possible, it is not actual, and that causal finitism - the view that only one finite set of events is possible - is true.
  • **03:35:00
  • Discusses the paradox of the Grim Reaper, which posits that an arbitrary point within a countable series can end the series. Alex Malpass argues that this is different from a series that begins but does not end.
  • **03:40:00 ** Alex Malpass discusses the problem with trying to prove that there is no god, given that you can't "interrupt" an infinite amount of time of an entity doing something. He argues that because we are currently at a present moment, we have to assume that there is some sort of "mover" that has selected this moment.
  • **03:45:00
  • Discusses the idea that some people might not believe in God because of personal reasons, such as the person's own philosophical axioms not being based on faith. Alex Malpass argues that this does not mean the person is wrong, and that it is helpful to have discussions with those who do not believe in God in order to enlighten them on the arguments for and against the existence of a deity.
  • **03:50:00 ** , Alex Malpass discusses the "necessity being" argument against atheism, which goes like this: If there is a necessary being, then everything within the temporal universe becomes necessary, because God could only choose one particular way to create it. The "modal collapse" argument is that if this is true, then mind or agency must exist within the necessary being, because it is from the point of view of the observer – not the creator – that all possible universes become necessary.
  • **03:55:00 ** "The Review: A Case for God with Alex Malpass" discusses Alex Malpass's argument that the prophet Muhammad only used the Quran to speak. Malpass argues that this is wrong, as the prophet Muhammad also reasoned with non-Muslims.

04:00:00 - 04:05:00 ​

looks at how people have been arguing for and against the existence of God throughout history, and how these arguments have changed over time. Alex Malpass argues that even though people may have arguments against Islam, it does not mean that they need to study metaphysics or philosophy in order to believe in God.

**04:00:00

  • Discusses the fact that there are many people who have arguments against Islam, even though they do not necessarily invalidate the religion itself. Alex Malpass argues that even though people may have these arguments, it does not mean that they need to study metaphysics or philosophy in order to believe in God.
  • **04:05:00
  • Discusses the history and nature of arguments for and against the existence of God, and how they may be different today than they were in the past. It also provides an example of how a prophet addressed a current problem.

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

0:00:06 i am0:00:28 i0:00:40 how's it going bro how did i get my kid0:00:42 good inshallah we'll0:00:44 we should have abdul rahman and0:00:47 joseph along shortly uh0:00:50 apologies to uh to the audience for0:00:52 coming in a bit late slight confusion0:00:54 brothers0:00:56 uh0:00:56 always get this to go to sleep time and0:00:58 stuff like that so0:01:01 just how it is uh but yeah inshallah0:01:03 today we're going to be discussing about0:01:06 uh the recent discussion that brother0:01:08 jake0:01:10 and abdulrahman0:01:13 now0:01:14 as some of you many of you would know0:01:16 alex malpass is a prominent atheist0:01:20 uh he's world-renowned isn't he jake0:01:22 he's not like uh0:01:24 it's not like you're aaron rodz is he0:01:28 no that's right yeah no he's he's an0:01:30 academic i don't think he's a professor0:01:32 anymore but he used to be and he still0:01:35 publishes in academic journals0:01:38 so yes that's right yes0:01:41 so he's uh you know and one of his areas0:01:45 of interest0:01:47 is looking at the various arguments for0:01:50 theism so this is his particular what he0:01:54 sees as his speciality so when0:01:57 uh when uh he came on tap show uh last0:02:00 week it was last week wasn't it now yeah0:02:01 uh last week uh he's coming on with a0:02:04 lot of credibility0:02:06 per se0:02:12 0:02:14 17th of november so yeah i think it was0:02:17 last week wasn't it a week in a week and0:02:19 a half week and a half ago because0:02:21 thursday wasn't it0:02:23 it was a wednesday yeah so wednesday0:02:25 yeah0:02:26 yeah yeah so yeah so how did that uh0:02:30 you know he came on and we wanted to um0:02:33 you know bring out some sort of0:02:35 discussions with him uh0:02:38 one thing i wanted to maybe raise is0:02:39 because obviously today what we're going0:02:41 to do is try to break down the0:02:42 discussion for the audience because0:02:45 there was a lot of discussions a lot of0:02:47 points that0:02:48 it wasn't really there to be sort of0:02:50 explained for the lay audience it was0:02:53 more here's the discussion we're having0:02:55 with somebody like alex malpass there's0:02:57 gonna be certain assumptions in terms of0:03:00 uh the understandings of the arguments0:03:03 that have sort of been already assumed0:03:05 and understood from each party and so0:03:08 you know there may have been some0:03:10 technical issues and discussions that0:03:13 we thought we were trying to break them0:03:14 down0:03:15 and maybe add some thoughts as well in0:03:17 terms of the discussion0:03:19 uh regardless of that so just as a0:03:21 general quick question uh0:03:23 jake how did you find the discussion0:03:25 because it was just uh you and0:03:26 abdulrahman how come0:03:28 how come we were invited me and yourself0:03:31 0:03:34 well i mean you guys are invited but um0:03:38 we thought it would be better if we had0:03:40 less people on0:03:42 so we opted to have only two people on0:03:45 and uh unfortunately you you guys didn't0:03:48 make the cut uh no okay we just picked0:03:51 two people and um0:03:53 we we went ahead with it that was all um0:03:56 yeah i think you know because people are0:03:58 saying you know how come the other0:03:59 brothers went on and i think we0:04:00 discussed this and basically0:04:02 you know because it was gonna be uh you0:04:05 know0:04:06 a long0:04:07 uh prominent discussion that you know0:04:10 before if there's all four of us on0:04:12 there it's just gonna0:04:13 you know we're all gonna try to jump in0:04:15 with our own lines of discussions and0:04:16 reasoning before let uh a couple of the0:04:20 brothers to go on and primarily let0:04:22 abdulrahman uh sort of leave the0:04:25 discussion um0:04:26 now obviously we didn't make this into a0:04:29 debate did we jake we this wasn't a0:04:31 debate with alex malpass maybe in the0:04:33 previous types of discussions with that0:04:35 we've had with other0:04:37 atheists on here it's been more of a0:04:40 debate type discussion even though it's0:04:41 a discussion it's like a formal debate0:04:43 but it's more0:04:45 this wasn't really that type of thing0:04:48 was it not0:04:50 no no it wasn't supposed to be a debate0:04:52 or anything like that it was supposed to0:04:53 be a discussion and uh obviously we0:04:57 disagreed at0:04:58 several points throughout the discussion0:05:00 but wasn't intended to be a debate and i0:05:03 think it was a nice0:05:04 discussion and conversation and i think0:05:07 that0:05:09 the objective was achieved0:05:11 so yeah obviously we'll talk more about0:05:13 the details of0:05:15 what happened in the discussion and what0:05:18 both parties said about different topics0:05:20 but i thought that it went well but yeah0:05:22 it was not meant to be a debate0:05:25 yeah yeah i think the issue is is that0:05:27 we wanted to bring these types of0:05:28 discussions to our audience uh and we0:05:31 know most of the people that watch our0:05:33 stuff are muslims so we want them to be0:05:35 aware of0:05:36 atheist arguments0:05:38 uh and maybe give a bit of pushback in0:05:41 terms of our perspective0:05:43 uh0:05:43 so that people can sort of understand0:05:45 and assess for themselves and in fact0:05:47 also for atheists as well we're watching0:05:48 we want them to understand what the0:05:50 arguments are because many times we have0:05:52 these types of discussions with people0:05:54 and0:05:55 they come up with various uh sort of0:05:59 you know not really great argumentation0:06:02 so we thought would we do that so0:06:04 obviously we're still waiting for yusuf0:06:06 and abraham each other they should be0:06:08 coming uh0:06:10 should be coming on soon inshallah but0:06:12 uh i want to go into the first so what0:06:15 we're gonna do we're not necessarily i0:06:16 don't know jake if you want to play some0:06:18 parts of the video0:06:20 or if we just go through some of the0:06:22 topic areas0:06:24 because the first question that i was0:06:25 going to sort of0:06:27 what we wanted to really discuss0:06:29 was uh really his0:06:33 think there's no response0:06:34 it's a three and a half hour discussion0:06:36 and we don't really want to go over all0:06:38 of it and even taking out snippets is0:06:40 quite hard because a lot of back and0:06:43 forth there's a lot of discussion that0:06:44 needs to be understood background0:06:46 information we thought better just to0:06:49 explain some of the key points and maybe0:06:51 from our perspective how we saw uh the0:06:54 particular discussion and maybe uh bring0:06:57 that out to the audience as well so0:06:59 anyway so you know if jay if you want to0:07:01 bring out any particular timestamps0:07:03 that's not a problem in charlotte we can0:07:04 always play it but we'll try it yeah but0:07:06 the first one that i was going to ask0:07:08 was in terms of0:07:09 what was0:07:10 what was his response because you asked0:07:12 the first question0:07:15 can about0:07:15 theist be rationally justified in that0:07:17 position0:07:18 yeah0:07:20 so that was the sort of first question0:07:24 yeah yeah and just in case uh people0:07:26 didn't check it out yet we did0:07:29 clip out two sections of the the full0:07:32 discussion that we had with alex malpass0:07:35 one of them was on this specific0:07:37 question so if you want to see exactly0:07:39 what he said um it should be what the0:07:42 second to last video0:07:44 right uh because the last one was when i0:07:47 kind of had a discussion with him but0:07:48 the video before that you can see his0:07:51 full response it's only about three four0:07:53 minutes long whatever it is but anyway0:07:55 yeah0:07:56 so0:07:58 i started off by asking him whether or0:08:00 not you could be rationally justified as0:08:03 a theist0:08:04 and he said yes0:08:07 which i wasn't too surprised about to be0:08:09 honest0:08:10 and he wound up explaining that you know0:08:13 there are theists that he knows0:08:14 personally one of which he mentioned0:08:16 josh rashfordson0:08:18 in which um0:08:20 he respects and although they disagree0:08:22 on things he doesn't think that he's uh0:08:25 irrational or like he's got some0:08:27 cognitive defect or anything like that0:08:30 so um0:08:31 yeah he went on to give examples of like0:08:33 crazy things that oh yeah that just0:08:35 seems a bit weird to say that that would0:08:37 be rational person0:08:39 but um0:08:40 he said that yeah they're basically0:08:42 there can be reasonable disagreement and0:08:44 that a theist can be justified and0:08:47 rational in their position0:08:50 and i thought that that was quite um a0:08:53 good response and of course we welcome0:08:56 it but that's part of the objective of0:08:59 our streams and our channel is to0:09:03 provide a rational justification for0:09:07 theism for islam and more particularly0:09:10 and um so yeah that's that's what we're0:09:13 interested in to have0:09:14 an atheist philosopher0:09:17 um0:09:18 say that i thought was you know quite0:09:21 and it's not it's not the first time is0:09:23 this uh grey muffy also made at the same0:09:26 point0:09:27 um0:09:28 i think it was with yourself you had0:09:30 like a 20-minute discussion with him as0:09:32 well0:09:33 or was it before that0:09:36 i'm not sure to be honest because that's0:09:38 a while ago0:09:39 but he didn't make the point he did make0:09:41 the point i remember it was very clear0:09:42 he made the point about there being0:09:45 rational yes0:09:47 yeah for belief in god it's not like see0:09:50 what a lot of atheists try to present0:09:53 especially these new age atheists they0:09:55 try to present this argument which is uh0:09:57 theists are just crazy people believing0:10:00 in this sky daddy you know but yet the0:10:03 top and the you know dr gray muffy or0:10:05 professor gray moppy and alex malpass0:10:08 they're not like0:10:09 they are people who you know really try0:10:11 to go into these arguments0:10:13 in detail and yet and so the very top0:10:16 atheists are saying that yeah you can be0:10:19 rational now0:10:20 um somebody uh in the comment section0:10:23 not in our comment section in this live0:10:25 one but previously0:10:27 they said yeah but he's trying to say0:10:29 you can rationalize anything so was he0:10:32 trying to argue that you could literally0:10:33 rationalize anything0:10:37 no he wasn't because in fact what he0:10:39 what he wound up doing was0:10:40 he gave like an extreme example of well0:10:43 yeah you could say that this is rational0:10:45 and then he talked about theists and0:10:47 said well it's obviously not similar to0:10:50 that so he actually0:10:51 used that example to contrast with a0:10:55 theist belief in god and said no it's0:10:58 not the same as that i don't hold that0:11:00 position myself but it's somewhere in0:11:02 between in that it's rational it's not0:11:05 complete uh nonsense for somebody to0:11:07 hold that position but i myself don't0:11:09 hold it so in fact his example was meant0:11:12 to contrast and say that no it's not0:11:15 free reign on rationality that people0:11:17 can say that you know um anything they0:11:20 want and it'd be rational no it's quite0:11:23 the opposite but um there was somebody0:11:26 here in the comments i just wanted to0:11:28 address this0:11:29 real quick sidebar uh do you guys know0:11:32 what happened with hallelujah justin0:11:34 didn't see him post in a while yeah he's0:11:37 okay uh he's just going through some0:11:39 personal stuff so he hasn't really had0:11:42 the time to make videos or anything like0:11:44 that but um alhamdulillah he's okay so i0:11:47 just wanted to be0:11:48 uh0:11:49 yeah we chat because we chat to him we0:11:51 chat to khalil daily so yeah0:11:53 yeah yeah yeah he's he's still around0:11:56 he's still muslim i mean uh this is not0:11:59 the issue like that so0:12:01 yeah he's just um he's just caught up at0:12:04 the moment to where he can't produce the0:12:06 youtube content so but inshallah maybe0:12:09 i've been talking maybe in the next0:12:11 couple weeks he'll get back at it but um0:12:14 we got a super chat here from muhammad0:12:18 okay my fav youtubers are back0:12:22 i'm dead0:12:28 so we appreciate that uh i guess he just0:12:30 wanted to show some support which is0:12:33 good alhamdulillah0:12:34 so yeah it's it was uh getting back to0:12:37 the point0:12:38 um it was quite interesting that he he0:12:41 said that and he actually used that as0:12:43 an example to contrast that no is even0:12:46 though i don't agree it's not complete0:12:48 nonsense yeah i think he used the0:12:49 example of hamburgers eating people he0:12:52 said yeah you can rationalize that but0:12:54 theism is not on the you know obviously0:12:56 he's saying theism is different and it's0:12:58 not like that and then he mentioned0:13:00 certain prominent theists obviously he0:13:01 mentioned just josh rasmussen0:13:04 uh0:13:05 who actually i think he watched our0:13:06 video actually he watched uh he watched0:13:09 the discussion with alex malpass he0:13:10 mentioned0:13:12 um0:13:13 who else did he mention girdles uh0:13:17 leipzigs uh lightness0:13:20 um so he made he said these are0:13:22 prominent theists these are not stupid0:13:24 people so you know people of that level0:13:27 whom he considered more intelligent and0:13:29 rational than himself can come to the0:13:31 conclusion that belief in a creator is0:13:33 rational then who is he to turn around0:13:35 and try to say that it's uh you know0:13:37 some sort of irrational sky daddy type0:13:40 idea and that's obviously what the new0:13:42 age atheist tried to present and promote0:13:45 uh regardless so let me go to the next0:13:47 next discussion because that was the0:13:49 first part of the disc it was only a0:13:50 couple of minutes uh the next one and0:13:52 i've always a really interesting point0:13:54 yeah0:13:55 um0:13:56 and this was uh let me just try and get0:13:58 the timestamp where he talked about this0:14:01 uh0:14:04 so it was around about the 15 minute 450:14:06 seconds0:14:07 he basically sort of suggested that0:14:11 theists are under a greater burden of0:14:13 proof jake you remember him talking0:14:15 about that0:14:16 uh0:14:17 so they have a greater burden of proof0:14:19 theists people believe in god than0:14:22 atheists because theists are prolificing0:14:25 the evangelizing belief in god whereas0:14:27 atheists are not0:14:30 yeah yeah that that's that's the claim0:14:33 he made obviously i think we disagree0:14:36 with that and0:14:37 uh i think it was0:14:40 maybe been both of us but uh i think0:14:43 pretty sure abdulrahman made the point0:14:44 as well0:14:45 that0:14:46 no because0:14:48 there are atheists who also try to0:14:52 convey their ideas and get people to0:14:54 believe in them and accept them this0:14:56 same sort of idea like you find with0:14:58 richard dawkins uh sam harris and these0:15:02 new age atheist characters0:15:05 they've been doing this for0:15:06 plenty of years we see that there's0:15:09 there's a clear agenda on their part0:15:12 and uh they're trying to promote atheism0:15:15 to the public and secularism0:15:17 and0:15:18 so i thought that that was a little bit0:15:21 off in his comment it was too broad and0:15:23 general sweeping statement but um0:15:27 yeah i don't think that that's the case0:15:29 at all if in a discussion both people0:15:32 are making claims0:15:34 and i think he actually did go on to say0:15:36 this well as soon as i start making a0:15:38 claim now i have some burden of proof0:15:40 and i have to justify it and that's what0:15:43 happens this if you watch the discussion0:15:45 he makes some certain claims we ask to0:15:47 justify it what are your reasons for0:15:49 that and likewise the theist does the0:15:51 same thing there seems to be an equal0:15:53 burden of proof as far as that goes0:15:55 because both people are claiming that a0:15:57 position is correct or at least more0:16:00 correct than the opposite position and0:16:02 so there's an equal burden of proof in0:16:04 that respect uh that both of both0:16:07 parties have to attempt to justify and0:16:10 give a coherent uh picture0:16:13 of their world view and their positions0:16:15 on the subject matter that's being0:16:17 discussed0:16:18 so yeah that's awesome yeah no no0:16:20 definitely when i heard that i was0:16:22 really like i thought i was i thought0:16:24 it's a really strange thing to argue0:16:26 because0:16:27 irrespective of who's0:16:29 evangelizing the the proposition0:16:33 the both of them are still have to0:16:34 justify to themselves why they hold a0:16:37 particular proposition whether that's0:16:39 theists or whether that's atheist and i0:16:42 think what what you want to do as a0:16:43 human being whether you're going to go0:16:45 out there and do dawah or not what you0:16:47 want to do as a human being is you want0:16:48 to be able to be in a position where you0:16:50 can justify the beliefs that you hold0:16:53 and that you have good strong irrational0:16:55 consistent methodology and coming to the0:16:58 beliefs that you hold so if i now0:17:01 disagree with a christian and a0:17:02 christian christian's trying to say he's0:17:04 convincing me i'm not going to turn0:17:05 around and say well you're under the0:17:07 greater burden of proof because you're0:17:08 trying to convince me0:17:10 rather i'm going to assess his arguments0:17:12 in line with my arguments and then see0:17:15 which one i think is more consistent has0:17:18 greater explanatory power uh results in0:17:21 less metaphysical commands all of these0:17:22 types of things0:17:24 and then make my decision so it's it to0:17:26 be quite frank it's irrelevant uh0:17:29 whether somebody's evangelizing or not0:17:31 evangelizing i'm sorry did you just say0:17:33 that it was irrelevant0:17:35 yeah yeah i think it's all right0:17:39 i thought you were i thought you were0:17:41 hearkening back to a point and i thought0:17:43 we got past that sharif but0:17:47 yeah but yeah i thought i just thought0:17:49 it was really odd thing and i think0:17:52 that mentality that methodology that he0:17:54 holds alex holds i think it sort of0:17:58 it sets up the rest of his approach0:18:00 towards theism yeah0:18:02 um and just on the final point which0:18:04 regards to this point about atheism0:18:07 doesn't evangelize well you've got the0:18:09 uyghur muslims in china and you have the0:18:12 communist chinese regime which is0:18:14 evangelizing0:18:16 in part atheism yeah they actually are0:18:18 trying to push materialism and atheism0:18:21 as a way to critique islam uh and you0:18:24 know and yeah i think abdullah actually0:18:26 brought that up too yeah yeah he said0:18:28 you know it depends on where you are i0:18:30 mean go and ask some of the chinese0:18:32 muslims whether they think they're they0:18:35 uh that's happening i mean it's quite0:18:37 clear that yeah0:18:39 it's just a really odd thing you know0:18:41 richard dawkins sam harris and you know0:18:44 even to a certain extent alex malpass he0:18:47 you know he likes to go and he likes to0:18:49 debate uh0:18:50 william lane craig0:18:52 rasmussen0:18:54 i think he's debated uh robert kuhn as0:18:56 well hasn't he0:18:57 uh james anderson so he's debated and0:18:59 discussed with lots of different0:19:01 atheists yes yes sorry uh regardless and0:19:04 in fact he was the one that contacted us0:19:07 we didn't contact uh alex did we jake he0:19:09 contacted us0:19:11 uh0:19:12 to uh to come on our show because i0:19:14 think he wanted to evangelize he wanted0:19:17 to0:19:18 you know critique our arguments and0:19:20 ideas that's what he wanted to do so0:19:23 um yeah so i think that's that's uh0:19:26 it's it's a bit odd that he he holds0:19:28 that particular thing0:19:30 so i i want to go into that for this0:19:31 third point then um which is that it0:19:34 seems to me0:19:35 that and alex mentioned this point i0:19:38 think throughout his discussion0:19:40 that0:19:41 his position really is to undermine any0:19:45 and all arguments that theists make for0:19:48 god0:19:49 irrespective of whether he believes0:19:51 those arguments hold true or not0:19:53 is that is that pretty much his his his0:19:56 way of approaching these discussions0:19:59 well i think that came across in the0:20:02 discussion where0:20:04 for those who haven't watched it yet or0:20:06 maybe they watched it but didn't know0:20:08 this although i don't know how you0:20:09 couldn't notice0:20:11 i definitely talked uh significantly0:20:14 less than abdul rahman and alex0:20:17 and um0:20:19 that was fine i don't care so0:20:23 abdulrahman and alex were going back and0:20:25 forth talking0:20:27 for a large part of the part of the time0:20:30 and0:20:32 i at one point came in later when we0:20:34 were discussing psr and contingency and0:20:37 all this kind of stuff0:20:38 and um0:20:40 i started to notice exactly what sharif0:20:42 said i said to myself well hold on that0:20:45 seems to be conflicting with something0:20:47 you said before0:20:50 so wait let's get clear on this are you0:20:52 just representing an objection to the0:20:56 argument that you don't actually hold0:20:58 or do you actually think that that's a0:21:00 good objection and you hold the position0:21:03 specifically on0:21:05 uh hume's objection to the argument for0:21:07 example0:21:08 and what we wound up seeing in a0:21:10 roundabout way is0:21:12 no he did he wasn't actually0:21:14 taking that position he's oh he made he0:21:17 at several points in the discussion not0:21:19 only about this said oh well i'm just0:21:21 playing the game i'm just i'm just0:21:23 playing the game or i'm just doing this0:21:25 i'm just using an argument to try to0:21:27 undermine what is being said this to0:21:29 basically show that what you're saying0:21:30 doesn't necessarily follow or0:21:33 these kind of statements is what he was0:21:35 making so i'm not we're not like0:21:38 casting any intent against him he0:21:40 actually said several of these things in0:21:43 a discussion where you literally said0:21:44 well i'm just playing the game so to0:21:46 speak and not in a necessarily0:21:48 malicious way um0:21:51 you know people can draw their own0:21:52 conclusions about that that's up to0:21:54 others but0:21:56 uh he was certainly taking positions or0:21:59 raising objections that he himself0:22:01 doesn't necessarily hold in an attempt0:22:03 to undermine the argument0:22:06 and one thing is maybe thinking that0:22:09 we didn't know how to respond to it you0:22:11 see because even if it's not a good0:22:13 objection and there is response if the0:22:16 people in the conversation don't know a0:22:18 good response to the objection it could0:22:20 come across as if the other person is0:22:22 quote-unquote winning the discussion or0:22:25 has the upper hand or that sort of thing0:22:28 because the way i talk about it is a lot0:22:30 of these conversations are like a chess0:22:33 game0:22:34 and0:22:35 it0:22:36 you could know how to play chess you0:22:38 could know a few basic moves but if0:22:40 there's a move0:22:41 or a strategy that you don't know and0:22:44 the person pulls it off and you didn't0:22:46 see it coming now the sudden you don't0:22:48 know how to respond it's the same thing0:22:50 with these philosophical discussions0:22:53 there's plenty of stuff there in the0:22:54 literature but if you haven't read about0:22:56 it you're not up on the material0:22:58 somebody could say something even if0:23:00 they're not correct that catches you off0:23:02 guard and you don't know how to respond0:23:04 and therefore even if they themselves0:23:07 don't hold the position and are just0:23:09 saying that as an objection if you don't0:23:11 give a a coherent or sufficient response0:23:14 it'll come across as if there have the0:23:16 upper hand in the discussion so i think0:23:18 there was a little bit of that going on0:23:21 um i don't know if alex had specifically0:23:24 in his mind oh these guys aren't going0:23:26 to know how to respond but i do think0:23:28 that at times he was taking0:23:31 uh objections that he necessarily0:23:33 doesn't hold to to see what our response0:23:36 is going to be and eventually it came to0:23:39 a point where i said okay let's you know0:23:42 kind of stop playing the game because he0:23:44 admitted okay we're playing a game let's0:23:46 stop playing the game what actually is0:23:48 your position and let's analyze it let's0:23:50 see whether it stands up scrutiny or not0:23:53 and uh then obviously we went back and0:23:55 forth from there0:23:57 yeah i think uh0:23:59 i you know i0:24:01 i struggle with that particular approach0:24:04 i don't think it's uh you know i i0:24:06 wasn't there in the discussion obviously0:24:08 but looking0:24:10 uh from from the audience perspective0:24:12 and seeing what was going on0:24:14 i don't see that as a sincere approach0:24:16 towards trying to come to a conclusion0:24:20 you know sincere in the context of0:24:22 here's my set of axioms here's my you0:24:25 know methodology epistemology and based0:24:28 upon that let's analyze what you are0:24:31 presenting to the table and see whether0:24:34 i myself with the axioms that i hold i0:24:37 should be adopting your position or not0:24:39 yeah0:24:40 and maybe he might want to rethink you0:24:44 know as a person you might want to0:24:45 rethink your particular presuppositions0:24:47 or accidents or0:24:49 you know you take the epistemic approach0:24:52 you may want to do these types of things0:24:53 if you're thinking to yourself maybe0:24:55 i've missed something maybe there's a0:24:57 problem with my particular methodology0:24:59 because i'm resulting in this conclusion0:25:01 which i thought was incorrect0:25:03 so i you know i don't have a problem0:25:04 with the person doing that but i do0:25:06 think that it's problematic when a0:25:08 person0:25:09 doesn't0:25:10 you know will argue a point even if he0:25:13 doesn't believe in the point0:25:15 yeah i just find that really odd0:25:18 approach0:25:19 uh actually0:25:21 yeah i don't want to cut you off tree0:25:24 but i actually just dealt with that on0:25:26 on clubhouse just a couple hours ago0:25:29 there was a room opened up about0:25:32 some specific verse in the bible0:25:35 and we had a guy from israel so he's0:25:39 ethnically jewish0:25:41 but he actually doesn't even believe in0:25:43 god which he didn't say that at the0:25:45 beginning of the conversation0:25:47 and was coming to defend the trinity of0:25:50 all things which he doesn't even he0:25:53 himself believe0:25:55 and i said to him at a certain point i0:25:57 said uh which i was explaining to him0:26:00 and with all due respect to the guy i0:26:02 don't think he really even understood0:26:04 the point that he was defending because0:26:06 then i asked him0:26:07 have you read any article or book on0:26:09 this subject from a christian because0:26:11 you're not even representing the0:26:13 christian0:26:14 position properly0:26:16 and he said no well i said well what are0:26:19 we doing here you're you're an atheist0:26:22 trying to defend a particular thing0:26:24 about the trinity and you haven't even0:26:26 read anything on it it it comes off as a0:26:29 bit disingenuous i'm not saying0:26:32 exactly in the same way as as malpass0:26:35 because he was at least trying to0:26:37 represent atheist position although0:26:40 different objections associated with0:26:42 this was an extreme example where the0:26:43 guy was an atheist trying to defend the0:26:45 trinity which was a bit bizarre0:26:48 so i'm not saying it's a one-for-one0:26:50 example but i said to him and then other0:26:52 people started chiming in and they were0:26:54 like yeah dude why are you here0:26:56 what are you even doing here0:26:58 talking about this so um0:27:01 and i i said to him it just comes off a0:27:03 bit strange and uh0:27:05 yeah but but i think it comes definitely0:27:08 is it's a problem and i think there's a0:27:09 few people that have done that uh0:27:11 clubhouse who are atheists and they come0:27:13 on muslim uh chat rooms and they0:27:16 basically try to argue that the trinity0:27:19 is logically coherent and try to defend0:27:21 that for whatever reason and i think0:27:24 what they're trying to do is they're0:27:25 just trying to be skeptical they're just0:27:27 trying to push skepticism that you could0:27:29 literally argue any argument and you0:27:32 know we're all on equal grounds we don't0:27:34 know anything basically that's what they0:27:36 try i think this is their attempt but0:27:38 alex malpass doesn't believe that you0:27:40 know he's not a skeptic he does believe0:27:43 that there are certain ideas knowledge0:27:45 that you can hold but i think it goes0:27:47 back to his methodology or his his not0:27:50 methodologies his assumption that all0:27:52 the burden of proof or most of the0:27:54 burden of proof for upon the theist all0:27:56 he has to do is pick out you know an0:27:58 objection here or there and that's0:28:00 sufficient in order to0:28:02 undermine an argument irrespective of0:28:05 whether he believes in that objection to0:28:07 be valid and rational uh first and0:28:10 foremost because he's under no0:28:12 uh you know he's under no burden or very0:28:15 little burden to justify his own0:28:18 particular position0:28:20 yeah so i think that was the first part0:28:22 of the the show uh you know and i think0:28:24 it's a really important point that we0:28:26 have to sort of raise so that people are0:28:27 aware of regards to that so the next one0:28:30 i wanted we we sort of uh or you guys0:28:32 you and uh abdul rahman snow here0:28:34 actually couldn't get his thoughts as0:28:36 well0:28:36 but the the next part became a0:28:38 discussion about uh0:28:41 the actual infinite yeah um so i don't0:28:45 know what your thoughts are generally0:28:46 and we'll go to some of the specific0:28:48 questions about0:28:49 this particular topic area obviously0:28:51 it's related to the calam cosmological0:28:53 argument and uh if the audience haven't0:28:56 seen he had a debate with william lane0:28:58 craig particularly on this issue0:29:00 about uh the actual infinite0:29:05 uh the actual infinite so what about0:29:07 what malpass had to say or yeah yeah0:29:10 what was it as a brief summary of the0:29:12 what the type of discussions was and0:29:14 well i'll ask you a specific question0:29:16 about about it if you want0:29:19 yeah yeah sure0:29:20 okay then so0:29:23 his argument primarily rests upon the0:29:25 fact that it's0:29:26 not a logical impossibility to form an0:29:29 actual infinite by successive edition0:29:34 so he's saying that's that's only i'm0:29:37 not he's not here to prove0:29:39 an actual infinite can be formed by0:29:40 successive edition all these here is to0:29:43 demonstrate it's not an impossibility0:29:45 that's it0:29:54 jake i don't know if it's me but i can't0:29:55 hear you0:29:57 can't can you hear me now oh yeah i can0:29:58 hear you now yeah yeah okay yeah yeah0:30:00 what i'm saying is i think that that's0:30:01 what he was trying to argue for0:30:03 but um0:30:05 and abdurahman was talking to him about0:30:07 it but then i came in and i gave0:30:09 pushback and i started to raise an0:30:11 objection against it i was saying0:30:13 well0:30:14 and actually let me speed forward to say0:30:17 that he has a paper written on the0:30:19 subject where he's dealing with william0:30:21 lane craig's arguments which i actually0:30:24 read we actually read together0:30:26 and uh went through the paper0:30:29 and0:30:30 he0:30:31 admits in the paper and even in the0:30:33 discussion with us0:30:35 that0:30:37 there's never a point in which you0:30:38 traverse an actual infinite by0:30:41 successive edition0:30:42 and you've reached aleph null or uh0:30:45 infinity and you can look back on it and0:30:48 say oh yeah there's infinity meaning0:30:50 it's been traversed that never happens0:30:52 well0:30:53 if that's the case0:30:55 and the argument that craig is making0:30:58 says that in order for the0:31:00 universe0:31:02 or physical reality to have existed from0:31:05 eternity past0:31:06 that's what you would need to happen in0:31:08 order to arrive at here well then you to0:31:11 me you've already conceded the0:31:12 discussion because you're already0:31:14 admitting there's never a point which0:31:16 you get to the point where you passed0:31:18 infinity and yeah you've reached it by0:31:20 successive addition and it's already0:31:22 happened and so if that's the case well0:31:24 then0:31:25 i don't even think there's really0:31:27 anything to talk about when you get into0:31:29 these0:31:30 semantic points or all these other0:31:32 discussions about star0:31:34 not beginning to count and uh counting0:31:37 down from infinity versus counting up to0:31:40 infinity0:31:41 okay these are interesting exercises but0:31:44 the fact of the matter remains the same0:31:46 you never traverse an actual infinite by0:31:48 successive addition to where you can0:31:50 then complete the task and look back0:31:52 upon what has already happened it0:31:54 doesn't exist even for malpass0:31:56 yeah i think0:31:57 so there's there's a few things here0:31:59 because a few things have to be broken0:32:01 down because when we talk0:32:03 when this discussion about actual0:32:04 infinite is being uh discussed0:32:07 it's a different discussion to causal0:32:09 finitism which became a discussion later0:32:12 on0:32:12 uh so he said slightly different0:32:14 discussion it's a particu there's0:32:16 different types of actual infinite so0:32:18 there's an actual infinite formed by0:32:21 successive edition so that's a0:32:23 particular type of actual infinite that0:32:25 is being discussed and then there's a0:32:27 general you know uh can you have0:32:30 a hotel room with an infinite number of0:32:34 uh rooms in there or can you have an0:32:36 infinite number of numbers yeah so0:32:38 there's lots of different0:32:40 uh layers regards to this type of0:32:42 discussion and you're right we did read0:32:44 the uh alex malpass uh as a time all the0:32:47 time in the world i think it was this0:32:49 paper that he wrote so yeah we did we0:32:52 read that and it was quite an0:32:53 interesting point because right at the0:32:54 beginning when you started discussing0:32:56 this alex said oh i've written a paper0:32:58 on this uh i'll send you the paper0:33:02 so you guys hadn't read the paper0:33:04 so i remember in fact a year when he0:33:06 when he was first released there0:33:07 abducted as the0:33:10 so yeah so we had read that paper and0:33:12 you guys had read that paper as well um0:33:15 but i think what it is is that there is0:33:16 there is difference in discussions with0:33:19 regards to actual infinite so even if0:33:22 you want to concede an actual infinite0:33:25 is a logical possibility which you know0:33:28 is a very minimum bar0:33:30 to have to justify a particular argument0:33:32 you know because a person can simply say0:33:34 it's logically possible still but still0:33:36 believe it's not the case yeah it's0:33:38 still metaphysically impossible0:33:40 uh but even if you want to concede that0:33:43 there's all these different arguments0:33:46 uh with the issue of an actual infinite0:33:48 and forming an actual infinite by0:33:50 successive edition and one of the0:33:52 arguments that0:33:54 um0:33:55 alex malpass conceives both within the0:33:57 paper0:33:58 yeah and in the discussion is that0:34:01 he says grammatically you can never say0:34:04 you will have0:34:07 reached an actual infinite if you start0:34:09 counting0:34:10 but0:34:11 if you say0:34:13 if a person counts uh0:34:15 you know and has no beginning or0:34:17 continues to count forever he will0:34:21 count all numbers so a person who counts0:34:23 all numbers will count all numbers0:34:26 so he says there's a difference there's0:34:28 a grammatical difference you can say you0:34:31 will count all numbers0:34:33 but you can't say you will have counted0:34:36 all numbers yeah so i don't know if you0:34:38 want to sort of elaborate upon that0:34:40 difference0:34:42 yeah sure and really quickly mr m0:34:46 sent a 349 super sticker so0:34:49 shout out to mr m appreciate that0:34:52 um0:34:54 yeah so0:34:56 he goes into this0:34:58 semantic discussion0:35:01 um0:35:04 just i'm really trying to remember0:35:06 exactly how he discusses it in the paper0:35:08 but he he basically is saying yeah0:35:11 there's never a point and and based on0:35:13 what i just talked about he's explaining0:35:16 that in english saying0:35:18 that0:35:20 there's never a point in which0:35:22 you will have0:35:24 right you will have finished meaning0:35:27 that is past tense that you will have0:35:29 finished and look back on it but you0:35:32 will finish0:35:33 is basically saying this will you say0:35:36 hold on a second so0:35:38 what's the difference well the0:35:40 difference is that exactly what i'm0:35:41 saying0:35:42 claim is that you will eventually or you0:35:45 will finish it0:35:46 but0:35:47 when you say you will have it's as if0:35:50 you have finished it and you can look0:35:52 back and say oh i finished a task of0:35:55 traversing an actual infant by0:35:56 successive edition he admits that you0:35:59 never will have finished0:36:01 so yeah that's the if that's the case0:36:04 then that's exactly what i'm saying the0:36:06 argument against an actual infinite by0:36:09 successive addition0:36:11 and what you see we have to understand0:36:13 in the context of the argument the0:36:15 argument is meant to demonstrate that0:36:17 the physical world the physical material0:36:20 world cannot be eternal the universe or0:36:23 any conglomeration of different0:36:25 universes cannot be eternal0:36:28 into the past you see0:36:30 and so the argument against an actual uh0:36:33 infinite by successive edition is meant0:36:35 to show that that is true that it cannot0:36:37 be0:36:38 uh sort of eternal in the past and the0:36:41 reason is because well if it was to be0:36:44 uh0:36:46 infinite or eternal in the past then0:36:49 that would entail0:36:51 traversing an actual infinite by0:36:53 successive addition in order to arrive0:36:55 at this point and because that's0:36:58 possible that can't happen and therefore0:37:01 the universe can't be eternal which then0:37:03 calls into question well then where to0:37:05 come from and of course we get to the an0:37:07 argument for god's existence uh sort of0:37:09 out of that0:37:10 but boba and jason he's saying0:37:13 go go psyche yeah go ahead no i was0:37:15 going to say but jay what he's trying to0:37:17 from what i understand what he's trying0:37:18 to argue is he's trying to say that to0:37:19 say you will count all numbers0:37:22 yeah is that that statement is not a0:37:25 logical impossibility0:37:27 so you saying you will have is a logical0:37:30 impossibility but you will count all0:37:33 numbers is not a logical impossibility0:37:37 yeah and i'm simply saying0:37:39 just like it's just like with the0:37:40 trinity we talk about0:37:42 a linguistic solution versus a0:37:45 metaphysical one it's just a it's just a0:37:47 convenient consistent sentence it gives0:37:50 you a way to express something0:37:52 but the the interesting part is the0:37:55 metaphysics of it or how it is0:37:57 instantiated into reality0:37:59 and the0:38:00 sentence that we're concerned with is0:38:03 will have0:38:04 because in order for the universe to be0:38:07 uh infinite or eternal in the past0:38:10 you have to0:38:12 it has to be translated from not you0:38:14 will it has to be uh0:38:16 then morphed into you will have if it0:38:20 never gets converted to you will have0:38:23 then it doesn't matter because the thing0:38:25 that is in question assumes you will0:38:28 have not you will you see i just it's0:38:32 not really an interesting point it's0:38:34 just it's it's more of a it's a0:38:36 non-sequitur it doesn't really0:38:38 and and just as a as a further point as0:38:40 well which is i think is important is0:38:42 that0:38:43 what alex malpass is trying to do he's0:38:45 trying to take0:38:47 what craig is saying0:38:49 and he's the assumptions that craig has0:38:51 so he craig is an a theorist of time so0:38:55 he believes that there is a past0:38:56 that finishes0:38:58 and that and the past causes the0:38:59 president and the president exists and0:39:01 the president will cause what will0:39:03 happen in the future so he's an a0:39:05 theorist0:39:06 uh0:39:07 in terms of um a time yeah so alexandre0:39:11 is trying to assume that he's not trying0:39:13 to necessarily refute that although he0:39:15 does you know critique it from a b0:39:17 theory of time but in in this argument0:39:20 he tries to assume that there is a0:39:23 uh you know an a theory of time0:39:26 there is the present that's been created0:39:28 by successive edition and therefore you0:39:30 can still have0:39:32 an actual infinite or it's still a0:39:34 possibility it's not a logical0:39:36 impossibility but you're saying that no0:39:39 you still have to have0:39:40 you will have reached an actual infinite0:39:44 he agrees and concedes that he just says0:39:46 but you can have you will0:39:49 count all numbers yeah but he then also0:39:52 argues um and he's shamed um0:39:54 abdulrahman's not here yet although he0:39:56 will be coming soon in charlotte uh0:39:58 because i want to get his thoughts on0:40:00 this but he's trying to also argue he0:40:02 says there's no there's not a symmetry0:40:05 because he would say to you jake he said0:40:07 you're making a symmetry between0:40:09 starting to count and going into the0:40:11 future0:40:12 to to0:40:14 the past and coming to the present there0:40:16 isn't a symmetry there's a symmetry0:40:18 breaker so he would concede and he0:40:21 conceded in the discussion that you0:40:24 can't end an endless series so if you0:40:26 start to count0:40:28 you won't reach infinity you won't say0:40:30 alif naught out aloud i you will not0:40:33 have reached you know you will you can't0:40:35 say you will have reached0:40:38 an actual inventory he agrees that you0:40:40 can't have that0:40:41 so you can't end0:40:43 an endless series but he's now saying0:40:45 but he's different because he's saying0:40:47 you you're not ending an endless series0:40:50 rather you're ending a beginningless0:40:53 series0:40:57 okay so now you're going into the0:40:59 distinction about the uh0:41:01 the beginningless series versus an0:41:04 endless one right that's what you're0:41:05 asking about sharif0:41:07 okay uh so a beginningless series that0:41:09 can end so he's saying well you have the0:41:12 problem with the the start and then end0:41:15 is that you have no actual limit to say0:41:17 when you end0:41:19 but when you have a beginning you have a0:41:21 a non-bound0:41:23 start let's say that that doesn't have a0:41:25 limit but you have a limit the limit is0:41:30 you know the moment that we reach now so0:41:32 there's an end so you can go from0:41:34 beginning list and count down0:41:36 and you'll count down all numbers you0:41:38 will count out all numbers including the0:41:40 number zero0:41:43 yeah yeah yeah so0:41:46 again he's saying0:41:47 an endless series in which you began but0:41:51 there's no end obviously you're never0:41:54 gonna end so he's admitting to that and0:41:56 they say okay yeah we agree0:41:58 then he's saying well the more0:42:00 interesting question which would be the0:42:02 case if the past were infinite or0:42:05 uh eternal0:42:08 beginningless yeah beginningless yeah0:42:10 yeah i'm getting to that so it would be0:42:12 a case and yeah it would be a case in0:42:14 which0:42:14 there's no beginning but there's an end0:42:17 so on the fir in the first case there's0:42:19 a difference between there's a beginning0:42:21 with no end well he's saying of course0:42:23 if there's a beginning with no end how0:42:25 could the endless end that's stupid0:42:28 which he admits in the discussion so he0:42:30 says well wait if we flip it what about0:42:33 something that had no beginning but it0:42:35 has an end is that possible and he says0:42:38 well yeah i don't see why not0:42:40 and so that's the distinction let me say0:42:43 that again so people really get it0:42:46 there's a distinction between something0:42:48 that doesn't have a beginning0:42:50 but ends which he's saying is possible0:42:53 and something which has a beginning but0:42:56 has no end he's saying0:42:58 for to say that there's something that0:43:00 has a beginning with no end and to say0:43:03 that it ended well that's a0:43:04 contradiction so he's proposing the idea0:43:08 well no in actual fact it would be a0:43:10 case where there's no beginning but that0:43:12 it ends and there's nothing0:43:14 contradictory about that so what's your0:43:16 problem so abdurah man0:43:19 god bless him0:43:21 playing the game dancing around with0:43:22 malpass and0:43:24 i come in and i said well wait up hold0:43:26 on a second0:43:27 what do you mean by0:43:29 not beginning and so0:43:32 what i wanted to point out here was0:43:33 actually0:43:34 a linguistic point0:43:36 that you shouldn't really say0:43:39 not beginning because that is0:43:42 equivocal it could be understood in two0:43:44 ways for example0:43:47 if i said0:43:48 i never began to eat the pizza like if i0:43:51 had a pizza pie and say oh i never began0:43:53 to eat it0:43:54 well0:43:56 that could just mean that i never ever0:43:57 started eating pizza0:43:59 but it could also mean that i was always0:44:02 eating pizza i never began0:44:05 but i also never started because i was0:44:07 always eating it so i said0:44:10 we shouldn't really use we shouldn't0:44:11 really use that phrase that we never0:44:13 began because that could just mean you0:44:15 never counted any number for example or0:44:18 you never ate the first slice of pizza0:44:19 you never ate any slice of pizza so what0:44:22 it should actually be say is that you0:44:24 were always eating the pizza or always0:44:27 counting okay so we got that cleared up0:44:30 supposedly the guy is always counting so0:44:32 he's always been counting from eternity0:44:35 past he's always been counting numbers0:44:38 and0:44:39 now the question that i got to is well0:44:42 he he actually brought up the example0:44:44 where you walk around the corner and0:44:46 there's a guy like in the alley and0:44:48 eventually he's completed the task he's0:44:51 completed0:44:52 counting0:44:53 so he's reached the finish line0:44:55 and the question is well why did he0:44:57 finish at that time0:45:00 and there's absolutely no answer0:45:02 there's absolutely no answer but then i0:45:04 said which he admitted but then i0:45:06 brought it back a step i say0:45:08 what if we were walking around the0:45:10 corner0:45:10 before he reached infinity or aleph null0:45:14 what number would he be at0:45:16 and it's totally arbitrary0:45:18 you can say that he would be at any0:45:20 number at any given time0:45:23 because it makes no sense0:45:25 at what point was he at the number 10 at0:45:28 what point was he at the number 50 at0:45:30 what point was he at the number 1000:45:32 it's totally inconceivable that he was0:45:35 at any particular number at any0:45:37 particular time and it begs the question0:45:40 if you can't show how he would be at any0:45:43 particular number at any particular time0:45:46 how would you ever substantiate him0:45:48 finishing0:45:50 which is reaching aleph no that doesn't0:45:52 make any sense0:45:54 yeah yeah yeah so0:45:56 so i think uh0:45:58 i think it was a couple of0:46:01 ideas or arguments that you're0:46:03 presenting uh one was0:46:06 um0:46:07 one is about the idea of being able to0:46:09 interrupt his counting because he he was0:46:12 trying to say you know the guy is0:46:14 counting0:46:15 always counting and then he'll get to0:46:18 ten and then he'll get to nine and0:46:19 they'll get to eight seven six five four0:46:21 three two one zero that's it he's0:46:23 completed it he's done the job0:46:26 so0:46:27 i think the issue is this is just two0:46:29 arguments or two problems that you know0:46:32 quite clear that are in the are gonna be0:46:34 in our minds one argument is well can0:46:37 you ever be in a situation where you0:46:39 could interrupt him in the count0:46:42 could you get to a stage where you could0:46:44 literally get to him and while he's in0:46:47 the middle of his account and he's been0:46:49 counting and suddenly he's on a finite0:46:51 number of numbers that he's going down0:46:55 and here there's a couple of problems0:46:58 and one of the key problems is the0:46:59 problem of sufficient reason what's the0:47:02 reason why he's at that number as0:47:05 opposed to any other number there is0:47:07 literally no reason as to why he would0:47:10 be at 10 as opposed to a billion if he's0:47:13 always been counting0:47:15 yeah so there's no way of you being able0:47:17 to interrupt him so he would either be0:47:20 always counting and he's always on an0:47:22 infinite number of numbers and he has an0:47:24 infinite number of numbers to go0:47:26 or he would have already completed an0:47:28 infinite number and therefore there's no0:47:31 way of of us being able to interrupt his0:47:34 counting down from infinity there's no0:47:37 way so it's either that and then there's0:47:39 a the other problem0:47:40 is what you mentioned is0:47:42 when does he finish because if you0:47:44 interrupt if you go to him he goes yeah0:47:46 i finished last week yeah and you say to0:47:49 him why was it last week why wasn't it0:47:52 you know two weeks ago why wasn't it 100:47:54 years ago why was it a billion years ago0:47:57 he has no answer as to why it's taken0:48:00 that time to get to that moment yeah and0:48:04 there needs to be an explanation it0:48:05 doesn't seem to be any coherent0:48:07 explanation as to when he would finish0:48:11 in this counting down if have i sort of0:48:13 understood that point0:48:16 yes and what i want to say is what he0:48:19 wound up having to say because sharif0:48:21 you brought up a good point0:48:24 and we don't even need to interrupt him0:48:26 imagine the situation we're not0:48:28 interrupting them imagine a guy has0:48:30 always been counting0:48:32 and whatever he's counting in the0:48:34 alleyway i don't know why but that's the0:48:35 way that uh uh alex set it up let's just0:48:39 say you walk by the alleyway you don't0:48:41 interrupt him0:48:43 what number would you hear when you were0:48:45 walking by0:48:47 you see you don't forget about0:48:48 interrupting him just say he was doing0:48:50 it out loud and you were able to hear0:48:51 what number what number would you hear0:48:54 and what he wound up saying was0:48:57 which was0:48:58 it seemed to me to be somewhat0:49:00 contradictory because he was saying well0:49:02 there's a certain point at which he0:49:04 finishes the count right0:49:06 but then he wounds up telling you wait0:49:07 he ever he never actually finishes the0:49:09 count0:49:11 so because0:49:13 if he's saying that the you will never0:49:15 gets converted to the you will have0:49:19 then there's never a point in which he's0:49:21 counted and reached aleph null exactly0:49:24 but guess what here's another0:49:25 contradiction when it came back he said0:49:28 at any point because when we said well0:49:30 why would he finish at that time he said0:49:32 yeah that's a good question why because0:49:34 at any point preceding the time where he0:49:36 supposedly reached it guess what he's0:49:39 already counted an actual infinite0:49:42 because at any point in the past he's0:49:44 already counted an actual infinite so0:49:47 here's the contradiction0:49:48 he'll never reach you will have counted0:49:51 the actual infinite0:49:54 yet there's a certain point in which he0:49:55 will reach it0:49:57 and oh by the way at every point0:49:59 preceding that he's already reached it0:50:03 so0:50:04 this is totally contradictory it's0:50:06 either he would never have reached aleph0:50:09 null0:50:10 it's that he would always have reached0:50:12 aleph null or he would have0:50:14 he would at a specific time well which0:50:16 one is it he never reaches it he always0:50:19 reached it or he reaches it but at a0:50:22 specific time you can't have it you0:50:24 can't have it three ways and so because0:50:27 if if he's always reached it0:50:29 then whoa he's always been at infinity0:50:33 you see what i'm saying so yeah yeah i0:50:36 want to get abdullah is abdul rahman0:50:38 wait in0:50:42 he's probably combing his hair or0:50:44 something dude0:50:45 0:50:47 because i don't want to move off this0:50:48 topic of uh0:50:50 actual infinite because i know he has a0:50:52 lot of thoughts i messaged him i0:50:54 messaged him on whatsapp i said dude we0:50:56 need the motor mouth where are you stop0:50:58 combing your hair0:51:00 stop going yeah0:51:03 i just put it in a bun0:51:05 exactly man0:51:07 oh here he is he's coming now0:51:10 okay let's hold on0:51:12 let's see0:51:14 hey what's up buddy salaam0:51:17 0:51:20 0:51:22 he'll be back in a second inshallah but0:51:25 you see you see the contradiction i'm0:51:27 deriving now sharif right yeah yeah0:51:29 he's he's never he will never reach it0:51:32 wait he's reaching at a specific time0:51:34 but also by the way he always reached it0:51:37 because at any point in the past it's0:51:39 always he's always reached the actual0:51:41 infinite well those are three those are0:51:43 three answers which are contradictions0:51:46 he's nev he'll never reach it he'll0:51:48 reach it at a specific time0:51:50 and also he's always reached it0:51:53 those those can't go together it's got0:51:55 to be one of them or not i mean0:51:58 seriously so anyway0:52:01 yeah your mic sometimes0:52:04 your best mate0:52:08 i can't hear you abdullah we can't hear0:52:09 you dude0:52:11 um your mic0:52:13 doesn't have the mute sound but we can't0:52:15 hear anything0:52:21 he's gonna come back on0:52:22 yeah i was gonna say try try unplugging0:52:25 it and plug it back in somebody said0:52:27 that he they're bald well0:52:30 when abdulrahman gets a haircut we0:52:33 we can provide hair as well i don't know0:52:34 if you you need that but um he's he0:52:37 looks a little bit sad0:52:39 i'm just teasing abdul and also uh0:52:42 this person this fellow here in the chat0:52:44 but anyway um0:52:46 yeah so that's kind of the perplexing0:52:49 part is that when we pushed him0:52:51 and it goes to the issue so let's move0:52:53 on a little bit before abdul comes back0:52:55 to the issue of the psr0:52:57 why it caused the psr because there's no0:53:00 sufficient reason as to why he would be0:53:02 at any number at any given time0:53:05 and so it's just a mystery basically in0:53:08 christian terminology0:53:13 try unplugging your uh mic and plugging0:53:15 it back in if you haven't already0:53:21 absorbed looking more stressed0:53:24 um i don't know what this guy is saying0:53:26 here let me see0:53:30 um0:53:37 joseph is saying0:53:40 the contradiction is introduced when you0:53:42 assume he's counting from a finite point0:53:44 because you already introduced the fact0:53:46 that there was a beginning no he didn't0:53:48 in fact we're dealing we're dealing with0:53:50 the point now in which he's always been0:53:53 counting we're not dealing with the0:53:55 thing of him starting and then never0:53:58 ending we we agreed with that that that0:54:00 doesn't work and so does malpass we're0:54:02 dealing with the argument of him always0:54:05 counting all ie never beginning to count0:54:08 always counting and yet it having an end0:54:11 we're saying that's contradictory and0:54:14 i'm pointing out that the0:54:16 the responses he gave to this issue to0:54:19 me were contradictory so i don't see why0:54:21 because he said the oh the tap guys are0:54:24 ignoring him0:54:25 first of all you guys need to understand0:54:28 when we're having a conversation on here0:54:30 and there's like0:54:32 dozens and dozens of comments going by0:54:34 we can't address your comments so if you0:54:38 want your comment or question to be0:54:40 addressed you're gonna have to submit it0:54:42 as a super chat or a super sticker um0:54:45 not because we want to0:54:47 get money out of it but because we we0:54:50 won't be able to see it when it gets0:54:51 when it gets sent as a super chat it0:54:53 gets highlighted and stuck there so we0:54:56 can view it we just yeah it's not0:54:58 practical for us to read all of your0:55:00 guys questions0:55:01 we can't yeah so hopefully your yourself0:55:04 i think is probably his name is0:55:06 obviously he's appreciated that we have0:55:08 sought to address his argument we are0:55:10 trying to say that yeah0:55:12 he agrees you can't end an endless0:55:14 series but he agree but he thinks you0:55:17 can end a beginningless series or a0:55:20 series in which the person's always0:55:22 counting and0:55:24 there's a couple of arguments that jake0:55:26 used in the discussion and to be quite0:55:28 frank if you go if if you go and watch0:55:31 that particular section0:55:33 and you tried to tease out what alex's0:55:35 response was to jake and i listened to0:55:38 this uh0:55:39 i couldn't work out0:55:41 his actual response he didn't seem to0:55:43 have a response i i was why why0:55:47 rahman to uh0:55:49 to address this particular issue as well0:55:52 uh and0:55:53 you know the specific thing was about0:55:56 what at what point or what number if0:55:58 you're walking past this person0:56:00 what number would he be uh counting at0:56:03 that particular moment0:56:05 uh and because he believes that you can0:56:08 you know interrupt him and we live in a0:56:10 universe in which you can talk about0:56:13 10 years ago yeah so it's not the case0:56:15 that time was0:56:16 you know we get to a point where0:56:18 everything is0:56:19 an infinite amount of time but there's0:56:21 been a0:56:21 successive countdown if you wish to say0:56:25 to get to this very moment in time0:56:27 because he's arguing on presentism in0:56:30 regards to the a theory of time so he's0:56:32 he's holding that particular view0:56:34 abdullah money you stole problems with0:56:36 your mic0:56:40 just here you basically we can't hear0:56:42 you very0:56:43 barely dude0:56:44 try it now0:56:47 uh0:56:48 very faint very faint0:56:51 just shout0:56:52 hello0:56:54 yeah yeah0:56:55 we can't hear you dude but you you know0:56:57 you sound like you're at the bottom of0:56:59 the well and you're calling for help0:57:05 yeah yeah um0:57:07 you know0:57:08 we could always move on and then when he0:57:10 comes yeah re-addressing the point yeah0:57:13 because we which uh as best as possible0:57:16 we are trying to be fair to uh0:57:18 to alex in terms of his particular views0:57:20 don't be saying i want to make one0:57:22 comment on that actually sharif because0:57:25 this oh0:57:26 say it again0:57:30 it's still very low it's it's a little0:57:33 bit better but it's it's not it's still0:57:35 very low0:57:39 0:57:43 oh sorry man i'm not laughing at you but0:57:46 it's kind of funny so the the the point0:57:49 that i was gonna make sharif is that0:57:51 because i want people to know and i know0:57:52 alex knows this but0:57:55 the objection that i was raising about0:57:57 the psr and it being sort of um0:58:00 arbitrary at what number he's at at any0:58:03 given time etc0:58:06 this isn't an objection that jake came0:58:08 up with like i didn't just pluck it out0:58:10 of the sky that it's actually in the0:58:12 literature and it's represented in the0:58:15 uh literature uh on the subject0:58:18 interestingly enough though i i believe0:58:21 if i recall correctly uh i was having a0:58:24 discussion with abdul and some other0:58:26 brothers on facebook and i hadn't read0:58:28 that objection0:58:30 and uh i thought of it on my own i said0:58:32 well wait on hold on a second how how0:58:35 what number would he be at any given0:58:36 time this doesn't make sense0:58:38 and then i actually read i read up on it0:58:41 and um there were other people bringing0:58:43 the same objection connecting to the psr0:58:46 and so on so0:58:49 the fact of the matter is i'm what i0:58:51 mean to say by this is0:58:52 this is not just a problem that0:58:55 jake and abdulrahman0:58:57 derived or thought of on our own this is0:58:59 a this is a problem that other people0:59:02 see0:59:02 with alex's um0:59:05 view here as well0:59:08 hey guys uh how how am i0:59:11 that's better is better0:59:14 yeah0:59:15 go ahead0:59:16 i mean maybe some of the people in the0:59:20 in the chat can0:59:22 can just uh0:59:23 tell me whether whether i'm audible or0:59:25 not whether they can hear me can you0:59:26 guys hear me oh that's good now it's0:59:28 getting better it's like slowly slowly0:59:31 getting better0:59:34 yeah i think that's i think that might0:59:35 be uh brother riyad mashallah working in0:59:38 the background doing something oh there0:59:40 he is that that's that's the odd that's0:59:41 real doing something okay great0:59:44 yeah turn it down a little bit though0:59:48 saying he has a rope0:59:52 yeah so0:59:54 turn it down assistant slightly man0:59:58 jakes yes1:00:03 yeah so yeah malpass i have a lot of1:00:05 respect from us of course and you guys1:00:07 know that1:00:08 and uh and they yes and i think the1:00:11 discussion was great and i'm sorry for1:00:12 being late all that stuff but yeah what1:00:15 you guys are just talking about yeah so1:00:16 i think it's the question really is1:00:18 about whether it's a uh1:00:21 violation of the psr everybody's saying1:00:22 i'm too loud so1:00:24 yeah they're gonna have to do something1:00:26 about that1:00:27 no no it sounds okay now no no1:00:29 okay there's a delay all right delay1:00:31 with this when it's streamed yeah it's1:00:33 fine now yeah1:00:34 yeah so really it's it's it's really a1:00:36 question of whether it is a violation of1:00:38 a weak psr and i think um1:00:41 so craig has an exchange with uh1:00:44 with with the opi on this1:00:46 on whether it's a violation of the like1:00:49 a weak psr and partial explanation1:00:51 and craig argues that that it is that1:00:54 that um i mean the partial explanation1:00:57 whatever partial explanation can be1:00:58 posited it's not really uh1:01:01 it doesn't really qualify it1:01:03 as a partial explanation in the context1:01:05 of the weak psr that that opi proposes1:01:09 and uh1:01:10 and i think that's true because because1:01:13 because in the discussion with with um1:01:16 with dr malpass i mean what1:01:18 because what i told him was i mean it1:01:20 would be better if you just say it's a1:01:22 series of like you know just eating1:01:24 somebody eating cookies from a cookie1:01:25 jar because there's no real there's no1:01:27 real distinction between the the uh the1:01:30 moments of1:01:31 counting1:01:32 i don't think you should call it1:01:33 counting1:01:35 it's not metricated whatsoever1:01:37 and and uh i i do think it is a1:01:40 violation of the psr of even the weak1:01:42 psr so that's really going to be the1:01:44 deciding point on whether this argument1:01:46 does work to like um you know uh as a1:01:49 parody1:01:50 yeah1:01:51 what do you mean by it's a violation of1:01:53 the weak psr1:01:56 meaning that he's at any point in time1:01:58 you're talking about yeah so assume1:02:01 assume you you've come across this guy1:02:02 who's been beginninglessly1:02:04 counting down from infinity1:02:07 and then he's he reaches like1:02:09 like it just happens to be the case that1:02:11 you interrupt him1:02:13 and it's uh at 10 and he's like 10 9 8 71:02:17 6. and then then you're like wait a1:02:19 second if if i interrupted you uh like1:02:22 let's say1:02:24 uh1:02:24 three hours ago right1:02:26 uh1:02:27 you've had an infinite amount of time1:02:30 to reach that 10 that you're reaching1:02:32 right now right1:02:34 and well well why are you reaching it1:02:36 now and the same would be true for every1:02:38 moment1:02:39 in the series1:02:41 now1:02:42 so the question is whether partial1:02:44 explanation really works here right so1:02:46 whether whether whether there really is1:02:48 a partial partial explanation1:02:50 uh and and i i i think i mean i i would1:02:53 agree with craig that it it does even1:02:56 violate a weak psr1:02:58 and it just seems to be like this uh uh1:03:01 you know non-metricated arbitrary1:03:04 you know releasing of sounds from the1:03:06 mouth that you can't really1:03:08 there's no intelligible uh uh uh you1:03:10 know sequence there the way i see it1:03:13 uh so i think that's going to be the1:03:15 crucial question of whether it is really1:03:16 a violation of a weaker uh1:03:19 esr that allows for partial explanation1:03:22 so1:03:23 i think obviously the issue is is that1:03:26 why would he finish on a particular time1:03:28 why would he be a particular number at1:03:30 any given time all of these are problems1:03:33 because there's no explanation1:03:35 and it's not just that there's no1:03:37 explanation it just seems that1:03:39 i mean jake mentioned it1:03:41 uh he would be counting infinite time or1:03:45 infinitely so why would he be at any mo1:03:48 any particular so at any moment he's1:03:50 counted an infinite number1:03:52 you know so how that's right at at any1:03:55 point i mean this is really this is the1:03:57 the uh this is the the weird part i1:04:01 don't want to say the absurd part1:04:02 because that comes with certain like uh1:04:04 connotations but then1:04:05 at any point in the infinite past1:04:09 this person would have already counted1:04:12 an infinite number of numbers i mean1:04:15 yeah okay so the infinity would have1:04:17 already been counted at any point in the1:04:20 infinite past1:04:21 so1:04:23 you can just say that yeah go ahead i1:04:25 was going to say doesn't it just violate1:04:26 the point which he says that you can't1:04:28 say you will have1:04:31 reached an infinite1:04:32 if this person's always counting and1:04:34 he's reached an actual infinite at any1:04:37 moment or even he gets to zero let's say1:04:41 what can't we say he he has1:04:44 counted an actual infinite and he's uh1:04:47 his argument was that you can't do that1:04:48 yeah1:04:49 there's no real has here that's that's1:04:52 the that's the that's the tricky part1:04:54 though because there's no there there's1:04:56 no real like event of like traversing an1:04:59 infinite that that you can like point to1:05:01 it's it's it's the idea is that at every1:05:04 point in the infinite past1:05:07 the infinity has1:05:09 been counted so it's not like it it's1:05:11 not like so in the case where you where1:05:13 you uh1:05:14 where you're1:05:16 counting it would begin exactly yeah so1:05:18 then now there needs to be a task of1:05:19 okay traversing the infinite that that1:05:22 doesn't seem to be uh uh anywhere in the1:05:25 beginningless series right so where1:05:28 however before you go at any point in1:05:29 this person's life he's1:05:32 he's already uh traversed traversed or1:05:35 counted the infinity1:05:38 which again begs the questions as to1:05:39 what number he's ever on like so if1:05:41 you've already counted an infinite1:05:43 number of numbers uh that that that is a1:05:45 bit strange and there's a point i wanted1:05:46 to raise with malpass i forgot to uh1:05:50 because um1:05:51 well he mentions in one of his uh1:05:54 uh um1:05:56 i think one of his papers that that1:05:58 well the reason when he discusses his1:06:00 counting up argument right and that the1:06:03 the this hypothetical person1:06:05 uh will count uh1:06:07 every number in the series he he says1:06:10 well the reason1:06:12 one of the reasons he is for why this1:06:13 person will never look back and say like1:06:15 i have counted1:06:16 an infinite number of numbers is because1:06:18 well there's no there's no such time in1:06:20 the sense that while you have1:06:23 all the time in the world is basically1:06:24 going to be in him counting in the1:06:26 infinite future1:06:28 and uh1:06:29 and in that sense i'm wondering what1:06:32 comes after1:06:34 the infinite series in the case of the1:06:35 beginningless counting so i mean if1:06:37 you've been beginninglessly counting1:06:40 then it seems like it seems like there's1:06:42 going to be a problem with1:06:44 like so what we just said about well why1:06:46 aren't why weren't you at this point1:06:48 at any other point in the infinite past1:06:50 because you certainly had enough time1:06:52 plus uh i mean why is there time after1:06:55 the infinite anyway i mean it just seems1:06:56 like it is a bit tricky but i think what1:06:59 the argument i mean the the the it's1:07:01 it's a smart1:07:02 you know it's just it's a smart1:07:03 objection to to to the success of1:07:05 addition argument because1:07:07 it does point to a flaw in in the idea1:07:10 that well you you need to start this uh1:07:13 you know uh uh1:07:14 this thought experiment with a beginning1:07:16 when that kind of like begs the question1:07:18 because well a beginningless past1:07:20 wouldn't have had that beginning yeah1:07:23 yeah but1:07:24 i don't think it really does to be from1:07:27 my perspective i don't think it does1:07:28 anything all it does is show that1:07:31 the thought experiment should have a1:07:33 beginningless uh counting series or1:07:37 however you want to frame it the the1:07:38 only difference is1:07:40 with the experiment in which you begin1:07:43 but never end1:07:45 then1:07:47 the1:07:48 basically the conclusion of that is you1:07:50 will never reach infinity by successive1:07:53 addition1:07:54 and the opposite way when you say that1:07:57 you1:07:58 were always counting i.e you never began1:08:03 it gets reversed the conclusion is1:08:05 reversed that you will always have1:08:07 traversed an actual infinite so it it's1:08:10 going from you will never reach the1:08:12 actual infinite by successive addition1:08:15 to the one where there's no beginning1:08:17 you will always have reached an actual1:08:19 infinite so1:08:21 so that's that's where the problem comes1:08:23 in because if you're saying that you1:08:25 will always have reached it then it's1:08:27 arbitrary to even talk about what number1:08:30 you were at at any point you're not at1:08:32 any number you're at no number at any1:08:35 given point because you've already1:08:37 traversed it you're actual infinite at1:08:39 every point1:08:42 yeah and and i just wanna uh i i i agree1:08:46 with you jake i just i just think it is1:08:48 a smart smart objection in the sense1:08:50 that well it kind of got me thinking a1:08:52 lot1:08:53 uh the1:08:54 brother here is saying like there's a1:08:56 distinction between the count of numbers1:08:59 that are in the past and the count of1:09:01 numbers that are elapsed1:09:04 um so counting i don't know1:09:06 so the same thing isn't it the count1:09:09 numbers that are in the past something i1:09:10 believe we can agree or1:09:12 set1:09:14 i might i'm not really understanding1:09:16 what you're saying but what you might be1:09:17 saying here is allowing us to be quite1:09:19 honest yeah i mean what you might be1:09:20 saying is that um1:09:22 there's so aristotle uh aristotle has1:09:24 this whole thing that you know there's1:09:26 well the the past is uh1:09:29 is is potentially infinite in the sense1:09:31 that uh was it aristotle i think it was1:09:33 someone else1:09:35 uh maybe aquinas but then1:09:37 the past is is is not an actual infinite1:09:40 because like well the past doesn't1:09:43 really exist1:09:45 it's a potential infinite and the1:09:46 reasoning for why it's a potential1:09:48 infinite because well when you backtrack1:09:51 and start counting the moments in the1:09:52 past you'll never reach but that kind of1:09:54 misses the point the point is that well1:09:56 you will then having elapsed means we1:09:59 have an actual infinite instantiated in1:10:01 reality i guess that's that's the idea1:10:03 so i think that's confusing uh1:10:06 uh you know um1:10:08 a certain notion of potential infinity1:10:09 that's not really the one in question1:10:11 here1:10:13 so abdul rahman1:10:15 there's a discussion then um1:10:18 which keeps being brought up about this1:10:20 issue of actual infinite is that is it a1:10:22 logical impossibility because1:10:26 on the one hand we have these arguments1:10:30 even against this beginningless1:10:32 series and being able to get to a1:10:35 you know and enter that1:10:37 but1:10:38 it seems more of a metaphysical1:10:40 impossibility than a logical1:10:42 impossibility1:10:44 or would it be considered a logical1:10:46 impossibility1:10:48 yeah so you can bring it to a1:10:50 contradiction in some arguments like so1:10:51 so when you're talking about uh1:10:54 if you're talking about causal feminism1:10:56 you can actually bring it to a1:10:58 contradiction and then there are going1:10:59 to be other considerations there right1:11:01 when we discuss that1:11:03 you know on the stream and this is a1:11:05 metaphysical possibility so the normal1:11:06 this argument this argues for a1:11:08 metaphysical impossibility not a1:11:10 not a logical contradiction it's not a1:11:12 logical possibility it's just a1:11:13 metaphysical one when you take certain1:11:15 things into consideration it's just um1:11:18 uh it just seems to be metaphysically1:11:20 impossible not not logically impossible1:11:23 yeah because it because it's because1:11:26 it's inconceivable1:11:28 number one and also it seems to violate1:11:31 the psr because1:11:33 there's no good reason1:11:36 and you were mentioning earlier partial1:11:38 explanation it doesn't seem to me that1:11:40 there's even a partial explanation as to1:11:43 what number you would be at any given1:11:44 time or to say that you would traverse1:11:48 an actual infinite at any given time or1:11:50 even to say that you would always have1:11:53 uh it just it seems to collapse and it1:11:56 just mashes everything together it's1:11:58 like boom infinity is just there it1:12:01 makes it seem as if there is no1:12:02 traversing of it it's just there boom1:12:04 you just have infinity so okay okay1:12:08 we've spent a lot of time talking about1:12:09 this1:12:11 so we're going to spend more time1:12:12 talking about it only joking no but1:12:14 we're going to quickly move on because1:12:16 i think um1:12:18 you think we think it's possible for us1:12:20 to talk about an infinity for an actual1:12:23 infinite amount of time1:12:25 or potentially infinite1:12:29 might be a logical impossibility1:12:30 metaphysical impossibility1:12:32 ontological impossibility as well1:12:35 so but i think what it is so just for1:12:38 the1:12:39 when peop when we talk about this issue1:12:40 of the actual infinite and it cannot be1:12:43 um cannot exist1:12:45 actually1:12:46 what a lot of people are saying is1:12:49 causal finitism isn't it1:12:52 it's not really see alex malpass is1:12:54 addressing the issue of an actual1:12:56 infinite saying it's not a logical1:12:58 impossibility but really the discussion1:13:00 that a lot of people are having1:13:02 is this idea of causal finitism the1:13:05 chain of causing causal events has to be1:13:08 finite what1:13:10 what's um1:13:12 you know because you had that discussion1:13:13 with with him1:13:15 abdullah1:13:17 yeah1:13:19 yeah so so i think uh1:13:22 so i mean towards the end of that1:13:23 discussion1:13:24 so i do believe that uh that that alex1:13:27 pass leans towards causal financing like1:13:30 himself like his personal preferences1:13:33 uh1:13:34 as a personal preference maybe for for1:13:36 for other reasons apart from those uh1:13:38 like you know uh benedi paradoxes but um1:13:44 even i'm not 100 sure about that by the1:13:46 way because because i know that i've1:13:48 either read or seen it somewhere1:13:50 and when i mentioned it in the1:13:51 discussion it's not like i got like an1:13:53 explicit i don't think i got i don't1:13:55 remember i didn't really watch it i1:13:57 don't think i've acknowledged it1:13:59 yourself yeah i i think he acknowledged1:14:01 it yeah but but i didn't get like an1:14:03 explicit acknowledgement from him but i1:14:04 think if i remember correctly he does1:14:06 lean to towards causal feminism but then1:14:08 it's just the um1:14:10 those specific paradoxes that are1:14:12 proposed themselves that he thinks that1:14:14 he he respects the finitus solution he1:14:16 says it is a respectable solution as in1:14:19 uh like like he he wouldn't go for like1:14:22 a a a um he wouldn't take like a grain1:14:25 priest's approach to like like a a1:14:27 diathelitis approach to to to it and say1:14:29 well we can just accept that you know1:14:31 contradiction exists1:14:32 he doesn't take that approach he thinks1:14:34 that the finishes solution is a1:14:35 respectable one1:14:36 uh as is the uh unsatisfiable pair1:14:40 solution1:14:41 and uh the reason he he favors the1:14:44 unsatisfiable pair is because well it1:14:46 seems to be less1:14:47 costly because because1:14:49 all he's saying1:14:51 all you're saying the unsatisfiable pair1:14:52 is that well these these two1:14:55 uh you know possibilities which is1:14:58 the the the grim reapers plus you know1:15:00 that set up in in an infinite uh1:15:02 platform1:15:04 they're just it's just not possible to1:15:06 instantiate them in a single possible1:15:08 world and1:15:09 uh so he says that like1:15:12 if if you just1:15:14 you know right away jump to blaming the1:15:16 infinity he's like you might be making a1:15:18 mistake there well maybe it's just a1:15:20 scenario that's that that is the problem1:15:22 and this is not the same i just want to1:15:25 break it down a little bit for the1:15:26 audience yeah in terms of this review so1:15:30 he's got an argument against an actual1:15:31 infinite he's saying that his basically1:15:34 argument is say that all the arguments1:15:36 that demonstrates the logical1:15:37 impossibility1:15:39 are not necessarily sufficient to1:15:41 demonstrate logical impossibility1:15:43 however1:15:45 when theists argue using like the kalam1:15:47 cosmological argument1:15:50 although they to address actual infinite1:15:53 really what they're concerned is1:15:55 concerned with is causal finitism1:15:57 meaning that the chain of events1:16:00 you know you can't have this infinite1:16:02 cause of events that regresses back1:16:04 forever and you're saying abdul rahman1:16:07 and you mentioned it in the discussion1:16:09 you said alex malpass leans to causal1:16:12 finitism meaning1:16:14 he actually acknowledges1:16:16 you know the strength of the argument1:16:18 for causal finitism and he seems to1:16:21 adopt it1:16:22 as his own you know maybe personal1:16:24 position or what he thinks seems more1:16:28 more appropriate1:16:30 is that right abdorfan1:16:31 yeah cool so um1:16:34 what1:16:35 i just uh1:16:37 i don't know if we want to talk about1:16:38 the grim reaper paradox very quickly1:16:41 would be able to do that with i mean1:16:43 i mean very very quickly maybe just uh1:16:47 maybe maybe just just just very1:16:49 generally the grim reaper paradox is is1:16:51 basically a a uh1:16:53 it's been a death penalty1:16:55 yeah it's a benedict that tries to uh1:16:59 basically set up this scenario where if1:17:01 there was this infinite causal chain1:17:04 there you would end up with this1:17:06 explicit contradiction so therefore1:17:08 there cannot exist this1:17:10 infinite causal chain1:17:12 and1:17:13 so the solution1:17:15 to the specific paradox that uh milepass1:17:18 would adopt is is is not that well there1:17:21 cannot be an infinite causal chain but1:17:23 it's just that there's something wrong1:17:25 with the setup itself1:17:26 so yeah this specific setup cannot1:17:28 happen however1:17:31 possibly for other reasons he does lean1:17:34 towards causal fenetism in general1:17:36 causal phenotysm which is the view that1:17:38 in any causal chain there are1:17:40 a finite number of uh members basically1:17:44 or causes yeah so why is he so why is he1:17:48 why is he defending1:17:50 the uh1:17:52 unsatisfiable1:17:53 pair1:17:55 objection or response if he leans1:17:57 towards causal finitism what's the point1:17:59 of even defending that1:18:01 well i guess it's it's kind of like1:18:04 so so like you believe in god right but1:18:06 maybe there's like this really bad1:18:08 argument for god's existence and then1:18:10 you're like well hey this is a bad1:18:11 argument and you critique it for for1:18:13 other reasons so i guess1:18:15 i mean1:18:16 he doesn't do much but he doesn't he1:18:18 obviously doesn't hold that that's a1:18:21 good enough response otherwise he it1:18:24 would seem to me that he wouldn't hold1:18:25 the cause of finitism1:18:27 yeah i mean i guess that's why maybe1:18:29 that's something else that needed to be1:18:30 asked because maybe like so for what1:18:32 other reason if not this uh would he1:18:35 favor causal financing1:18:38 i guess that that would that would have1:18:40 been an important question as well we've1:18:41 not you you don't know about why he1:18:44 favors causal finances i i i do not know1:18:47 so i know someone and i mentioned this1:18:49 to him in the beginning of of the1:18:50 discussion1:18:52 uh1:18:53 uh about like someone like opie the1:18:54 reason he1:18:56 you know postulates this for initial1:18:58 uh state of the universe's first cause1:19:01 or whatever1:19:02 is because of like because he thinks1:19:04 it's more parsimonious it's more simple1:19:05 just so on the basis of simplicity he1:19:07 favors it now i don't know if1:19:09 malpass takes that same view1:19:12 maybe he does1:19:14 but uh1:19:15 but but1:19:16 for whatever reason1:19:18 but was that a case again1:19:20 so we have two options1:19:22 either he doesn't really hold to the1:19:24 unsatisfiable pair as a response to this1:19:27 and1:19:28 he thinks that it actually is a good1:19:30 argument for causal feminism the paradox1:19:34 or1:19:35 he does hold to the unsatisfiable pair1:19:38 in response to this argument and he1:19:40 holds the causal finitism for other1:19:42 reasons that which we don't know1:19:45 so which which one do you think it was1:19:47 because we already saw that he admitted1:19:49 to playing the game so to speak1:19:51 throughout the conversation and other1:19:53 players i think he does he so he does1:19:54 regard the you know the causal finitism1:19:57 solution as a respectful respectable one1:19:59 as in one that should be taken seriously1:20:01 so he doesn't think that like if you1:20:02 take the causal infinitive solution on1:20:04 the basis of this paradox itself you're1:20:06 like1:20:07 irrational or something so so i i think1:20:09 he so he does say it's it is a serious1:20:12 it it's a it is a serious uh1:20:15 consideration however i mean i think1:20:17 there are other problems as well because1:20:19 in many of these arguments and thought1:20:21 experiments were we're kind of like1:20:23 sometimes we're assuming a certain1:20:25 theory of time and1:20:26 even like space and stuff like that so1:20:29 so um1:20:30 so i honestly don't know the answer to1:20:32 yeah yeah so my understanding is that he1:20:34 had a discussion with joe smith uh and1:20:37 in which1:20:38 his argument uh was that1:20:41 causal finitism to answer the bernadette1:20:44 paradoxes so these ranger paradoxes1:20:47 related to like i think thompson's lamp1:20:49 paradox is part of the bernadetti1:20:52 paradoxes uh the grim reaper paradox1:20:56 you know he his argument is that causal1:20:58 finitism does solve that1:21:00 but at the same time1:21:02 it re it commits you to the nature of1:21:05 time and to the universe that physicists1:21:07 would have to be committed to so physics1:21:10 would have to now accept that you have1:21:12 to view space and time as being causally1:21:16 finite yeah and so1:21:18 his issue was was that there's too much1:21:21 metaphysical commitment in adopting or1:21:24 in adopting causal finitism to answer1:21:26 the bernadette paradoxes1:21:28 whereas his uh unsatisfiable pair1:21:31 diagnosis1:21:32 doesn't commit himself to the nature of1:21:35 the ontology of space and time and1:21:37 therefore affects how we do physics is1:21:39 that oh1:21:41 so can you be are you should we1:21:44 explain what the uh1:21:46 uh the1:21:48 the unsatisfiable pair is just basically1:21:50 as i've explained it that you just1:21:52 you're basically saying that well the1:21:53 problem here is not with the infinite1:21:55 chain the problem is with the the1:21:57 thought experiment itself the setup like1:21:59 you know the grim reapers and the whole1:22:01 setup of of you know with the alarm1:22:02 clocks and stuff like that1:22:04 whichever version of the paradox you go1:22:06 for1:22:07 the problem is with the setup not with1:22:08 the fact that there's an infinite set1:22:10 but there there's there's there isn't a1:22:12 question that like just came to mind and1:22:14 maybe jake and sure if you can you can1:22:16 help me with this so there's1:22:18 because we spoke a lot in the in the1:22:20 discussion about conceivability right1:22:22 and and and so1:22:24 conceivability is basically the you know1:22:27 to conceive of other possibilities and1:22:30 using that as a basis1:22:32 for for for certain you know1:22:34 metaphysical commitments1:22:36 now1:22:37 i'm wondering why1:22:40 uh1:22:41 so if if if conceivability is not1:22:45 that significant1:22:47 why is the fact that we couldn't1:22:49 conceive of1:22:51 this contradictory situation1:22:54 a real problem so1:22:57 why isn't it metaphysically possible1:22:59 because1:23:01 and and this would have been an1:23:02 interesting question to ask him too but1:23:03 it literally just came to mind because1:23:05 i've seen er er dr altmas as well argue1:23:09 like for example when he when he's1:23:10 responding to um1:23:12 to james anderson1:23:14 on his lord of non-contradiction paper1:23:17 and the fact that well something like1:23:18 let's say the law of contradiction or i1:23:20 don't remember whatever law of logic is1:23:23 uh you know is metaphysically necessary1:23:25 because it1:23:26 uh um1:23:29 james anderson says inconceivable that1:23:32 it wouldn't hold in any possible world1:23:34 and and1:23:35 dr malpas kind of attacks that and says1:23:37 well why is the fact that you can't1:23:40 conceive of it1:23:42 relevant to what is or isn't like you1:23:44 know truly metaphysically possible so1:23:47 i'm wondering if that truly is the case1:23:50 then why couldn't we go for1:23:52 you know why couldn't we just bite the1:23:54 bullet and say well hey this1:23:55 contradiction1:23:57 is a genuine possibility the fact that i1:23:59 can't conceive of contradictions is1:24:01 irrelevant1:24:03 yeah so just so to explain to the1:24:05 audience as well so1:24:08 what1:24:08 when when you presented the grim reaper1:24:10 paradox as an argument for causal1:24:13 finitism meaning it cannot be satisfied1:24:15 unless we accept this idea of causal1:24:17 finitism1:24:18 his response was to say you i can't even1:24:22 it's impossible based upon his i think1:24:25 it was his understanding of modal logic1:24:27 to accept1:24:29 that it could be conceived of1:24:32 uh this scenario could even be conceived1:24:34 of because obviously there's one issue1:24:36 that you can conceive the scenario and1:24:38 then you solve the scenario yeah so it's1:24:41 like you know the lies paradox we can1:24:43 conceive somebody saying this statement1:24:45 is a lie yeah but the same time we would1:24:49 have to now try to solve it yeah and1:24:51 then you know it results in various1:24:53 paradoxes or absurdities or whatever it1:24:55 is yeah1:24:56 so he was he was saying the the first1:24:59 part1:25:00 of the the grim reaper paradox1:25:04 is the problem so it's not the i have to1:25:06 try to adopt causal finitism is that you1:25:09 can't even have that type of conception1:25:12 of a scenario is that is that am i1:25:15 understanding his contention so he1:25:17 wouldn't even grant you to present a1:25:19 grim reaper like type paradox1:25:23 so the idea is also in in trying to1:25:25 solve the paradox we are taking for1:25:27 granted like we're already assuming that1:25:29 like so i mean if we're not going to go1:25:31 for for for1:25:32 a solution that just accepts the1:25:34 contradiction right and we're already1:25:36 assuming we're already presuming that1:25:38 well that contradiction is not uh well1:25:40 contradictions are not like1:25:41 metaphysically possible right1:25:43 so like the law of non-contradiction is1:25:45 is1:25:46 necessary1:25:47 and and1:25:49 uh so i'm not sure i understand your1:25:50 question there but then i guess no he1:25:51 just points what i'm saying is that from1:25:54 my understanding what alex was trying to1:25:55 say he's trying to say look there's no1:25:58 problem to solve1:26:00 because that scenario is impossible1:26:04 the bernadetti paradoxes are impossible1:26:06 they are like squared circles it's not1:26:09 like yeah you've got a squared circle1:26:11 okay let's try and work out is it1:26:13 possible or logically impossible yeah1:26:16 yeah logical axioms he said no you just1:26:18 say it's not possible so he's going to1:26:20 say that these types of paradoxes are1:26:23 not1:26:24 conceivable1:26:25 to even yeah1:26:28 so i'm not sure he'd say there's no1:26:30 problem but yeah i guess you're right in1:26:31 the sense that he says well the problem1:26:33 is with the thought experiment itself if1:26:35 contradictions are not possible then1:26:37 well i don't have to say it's because1:26:39 you know1:26:40 an infinite past is not possible it's1:26:42 just because of the setup is not1:26:43 possible and well he would yes he would1:26:45 just say that1:26:47 this whole thing is not really a1:26:48 metaphysical issue because uh as in the1:26:51 sense that we don't have to commit to1:26:53 one view of time or another or infinite1:26:55 but why why was he why was he dismissed1:26:58 i didn't i didn't personally understand1:27:00 why he was dismissing1:27:02 the uh scenario the grim reaper paradox1:27:06 why he just simply said okay you can't1:27:08 have that1:27:09 there's nothing to solve so okay okay so1:27:11 so okay and i'm getting what you're1:27:13 saying so this is the conceivability1:27:15 issue right so if i can so1:27:19 what he's saying about1:27:21 as i understand that the unsatisfiable1:27:23 pair he's saying1:27:25 if there's a situation in which it leads1:27:28 to a contradiction1:27:30 then that situation can occur this is1:27:33 basically what he's assuming if it if it1:27:35 leads to a contradiction1:27:37 that's the whole point of the1:27:39 unsatisfiable pair1:27:41 these things cannot be paired together1:27:43 so it's not a it's not necessarily a1:27:45 problem with infinity it's a problem1:27:48 with infinity1:27:50 and the grim reaper set up being1:27:53 involved in that that's what he's saying1:27:55 you can't put them together so it's not1:27:56 necessarily a problem with infinity it's1:27:58 a problem with maybe the grim reapers or1:28:01 maybe the grim reapers and infinity1:28:03 together you see that that's what the1:28:05 problem is1:28:06 that's what he said that's what the so1:28:08 he's saying there's a contradiction1:28:10 there's a contradiction the1:28:12 contradiction is because the actual1:28:14 scenario1:28:16 there's a fundamental problem you can't1:28:18 yeah so you can all we know it could be1:28:20 the fact of the grim reapers1:28:22 right right but then is this where when1:28:24 you were discussing about patchwork1:28:27 yes that's that's yeah that's where the1:28:29 patchwork principle basically comes in1:28:32 which abdulrahman was saying where1:28:34 typically1:28:35 okay1:28:37 we have this thing we have this other1:28:39 thing if we can have both of them then1:28:41 they can be put together and he's saying1:28:43 well no that's not not going to be the1:28:45 case because if they're put together and1:28:48 it results in a contradiction then they1:28:50 can't be put together because1:28:51 fundamentally it can't result in this1:28:54 contradiction so that's that's what he's1:28:56 responding to with this and so he's he's1:28:59 not committing to the idea that the1:29:02 problem is with infinity he's saying for1:29:04 all we know the problem is with the1:29:06 combination of infinity and the grim1:29:08 reapers or some other1:29:11 particular fact about the situation1:29:15 yeah1:29:16 yeah did you hear what i said about the1:29:18 conceivability thing because because1:29:20 the the question really is if if1:29:22 conceivability1:29:24 isn't to be taken1:29:25 uh you know seriously in terms of like1:29:27 you know it determining metaphysical1:29:29 commitments1:29:30 then then um then the whole idea of a1:29:33 contradiction being inconceivable well1:29:37 shouldn't that not play a a role in1:29:40 saying well1:29:42 why why couldn't it be the case that you1:29:44 could you just bite the bullet and say1:29:45 well contradictions are possible which i1:29:47 think because that could be a response1:29:49 to this and where you say well no guess1:29:52 what the pairs can go together and it's1:29:55 contradictory and so what1:29:58 some of some people1:29:59 somebody could respond that way so by1:30:01 the fact you're saying by the fact that1:30:03 he doesn't favor that response and seeks1:30:06 to alleviate the contradiction that1:30:09 assumes that not having contradictions1:30:12 in things1:30:13 is a good thing or that they're not1:30:15 possible the question is why are they1:30:17 not possible well if you say that it's1:30:19 because i can't conceive of a1:30:20 contradiction well then you're assuming1:30:22 the conceivability principle which1:30:24 you've already sought to undermine so1:30:26 that's your point right1:30:28 yeah1:30:29 yeah i i think something like that and i1:30:30 think maybe his response might be1:30:32 somewhere along the lines of1:30:34 well i don't know i i don't know maybe1:30:36 maybe uh maybe i'll i'll uh i'll try to1:30:38 contact him about that but yeah i think1:30:39 i think that's that is an interesting1:30:40 point because the1:30:42 conceivability part is important uh1:30:45 it's because by the way we know people1:30:47 who who take that position on other1:30:50 things we have christians who take that1:30:52 position on on jesus contradictory1:30:54 christ and they just say so what and you1:30:56 have the liars paradox and these other1:30:58 things so um1:31:00 it's not like we're just completely1:31:02 making it up the point is if you're1:31:04 preferring this theory over another then1:31:07 if you don't have another reason to1:31:09 prefer it besides conceivability what1:31:11 are you doing with and the other thing1:31:12 is1:31:13 i think you're going to have to appeal1:31:14 to conceivability in the case of1:31:17 an actual infinite by successive edition1:31:20 because we don't have like a scientific1:31:22 or empirical fact or our own personal1:31:26 experience in general1:31:28 with the actual infinite by success of1:31:30 addition and so the thing at play is1:31:32 gonna have to be conceivability1:31:34 otherwise what are you dealing with to1:31:36 really1:31:38 investigate or adjudicate that1:31:40 difference1:31:41 so yeah that's an interesting point it1:31:43 go ahead1:31:45 i think i actually made that point in1:31:47 the discussion1:31:49 um yeah1:31:50 because1:31:51 the point is it's not like an empirical1:31:53 fact that we know an actual infinite by1:31:56 successive edition or that we've1:31:58 experienced it plus what mal passes1:32:00 theory of of modality about the actual1:32:04 world and possible world stemming from1:32:07 the actual world well the whole thing in1:32:09 question is whether or not the actual1:32:11 world already has that actual infinite1:32:14 by successive edition or not and so you1:32:16 can't appeal to that because that's the1:32:18 very thing that's being questions so1:32:20 you're gonna have to appeal to some type1:32:22 of from my perspective conceivability in1:32:25 order to make sense of which way you go1:32:29 yeah i i think i think yeah i think that1:32:31 is a very interesting point because so1:32:33 if and and this has has a lot to do with1:32:35 with1:32:36 what what is is known as like mortal1:32:39 empiricism1:32:41 and and so there's more modal empiricism1:32:43 where your modal theory1:32:45 or or your your view of possible worlds1:32:47 would be1:32:48 like you know grounded in an empirical1:32:50 basis or modal rationalism where it will1:32:53 be ground grounded in a rational basis1:32:54 but1:32:56 that1:32:58 the the the issue is that i think1:33:01 uh1:33:02 that if if if it is grounded in our1:33:04 empirical experience i don't know why we1:33:07 would even consider1:33:09 a a an infinite1:33:11 you know series1:33:13 you know or or an infinite causal1:33:15 explanation wouldn't be a debate right1:33:17 yeah yeah exactly because or maybe maybe1:33:20 something they might say is that well we1:33:22 don't really experience a finite one1:33:24 either because it's just like ever1:33:26 growing but but i mean i'm not sure1:33:28 that's the case but we clearly don't1:33:30 have experience of infinities so1:33:33 maybe in this discussion or in another1:33:35 discussion something like this might be1:33:37 relevant that like wait why are we even1:33:40 taking the1:33:41 possibility of an actual infinite or an1:33:45 infinite past1:33:47 seriously1:33:48 if we are like you know1:33:50 using the empirical world exclusively as1:33:53 a basis1:33:55 for1:33:55 you know counterfactuals and yeah yeah1:33:58 so let me let me try to understand this1:33:59 and uh maybe help the audience as well1:34:02 so1:34:03 in his model1:34:04 what he believes is possible is not the1:34:08 same as what he believes is conceivable1:34:10 yeah1:34:11 he's saying what is possible1:34:14 is what is actual in this world so you1:34:16 know and maybe the audience have1:34:19 seen the types of discussions and we1:34:20 talk about possible worlds or possible1:34:22 universes if you want to use that word1:34:23 or possible worlds and we say certain1:34:26 things uh when we talk about possible1:34:28 worlds it's about whether it could exist1:34:30 in one possible world1:34:32 like you have a red1:34:34 like a red apple well could you have it1:34:37 another possible world a green apple or1:34:39 pink apple or purple apple yes because1:34:41 it's conceivable and because it's1:34:44 conceivable it's possible what you're1:34:46 saying absorption and jake is that he1:34:48 doesn't hold to that particular view of1:34:50 possibility he only holds the view of1:34:52 possibility of what's actual because1:34:55 we've seen a green apple and a red apple1:34:57 and a pink apple1:34:59 we've never seen a you know1:35:01 uh1:35:02 turquoise apple or whatever it is then1:35:04 we can't say the turquoise apple is1:35:07 necessarily possible or is a possibility1:35:10 yeah i'm giving a very crude example you1:35:12 might1:35:13 yeah so i think i think you're right but1:35:15 just quickly before you continue i i1:35:17 think i i think he he could say that1:35:19 like a purple apple is possible but then1:35:21 the basis of that would be like1:35:23 his experience experience of the world1:35:25 and and uh1:35:27 yeah so i guess what what i'm saying is1:35:29 that empirical basis right so so1:35:32 within that empirical reality it's hard1:35:34 it's purple we experience purple and1:35:36 apple yeah and then you have the1:35:37 patchwork and there's no contradiction1:35:39 that results so therefore it's possible1:35:41 yeah so so on that basis what i'm saying1:35:44 is like where it is so with from within1:35:45 our experience where do infinities come1:35:47 and come come in well they don't they1:35:49 don't yeah yeah yeah i mean david1:35:52 hilbert was quite clear about that when1:35:54 he talked about the you know there's a1:35:56 problem with1:35:57 an actual infinite in the real world1:35:59 everything we experience within the real1:36:01 world1:36:02 are finite things including the fact1:36:05 that the most spherical object that we1:36:08 know of1:36:09 is the electron but the electron is not1:36:11 a perfect sphere because if for it to be1:36:13 a perfect sphere then pi would have to1:36:16 have a value that regresses back uh an1:36:19 infinite amount of time so you can never1:36:20 have a perfect sphere says1:36:22 is that's why you need conceivability1:36:25 baby1:36:26 right okay let's move on really quickly1:36:28 because we've spent and you know we'll1:36:29 do it we'll do a whole show1:36:31 inshallah on the1:36:33 cosmological argument natural infinites1:36:35 i think it would be quite good1:36:36 discussion regardless of that we'll get1:36:38 people to ring us up and call in but1:36:40 let's go to the next part because then1:36:42 he wanted to raise the discussion about1:36:45 uh the uh the criticism1:36:47 of the contingency argument so in1:36:50 essence his uh he presented he said all1:36:54 contingent propositions require an1:36:56 explanation1:36:57 then he said yet theists1:37:00 believe that there's one contingent1:37:02 proposition i'm paraphrasing his1:37:04 position1:37:05 believe that there's one contingent1:37:06 proposition that doesn't require an1:37:08 explanation and that is the choice of1:37:11 the necessary being to create1:37:15 if that's the case1:37:17 uh then why can't atheists hold on to a1:37:20 brute contingency other than a belief in1:37:24 a creator god have i presented his1:37:26 argument against the contingency1:37:27 argument1:37:32 you muted1:37:35 i'm saying i got a bit distracted but i1:37:37 think you did so1:37:38 so so yeah so i'm just saying is that1:37:40 every contingent proposition requires an1:37:42 explanation1:37:43 theaters say okay you have therefore a1:37:45 necessary being a god then he would say1:37:48 yeah but the necessary being god did he1:37:50 choose to create and we would say yes oh1:37:52 most people would say yes or most thea1:37:55 or a lot of theaters would say yes and1:37:57 then you say well that's a contingent1:37:59 proposition and there's no explanation1:38:01 for that1:38:02 so therefore there's one proposition1:38:04 continued proposition that doesn't have1:38:06 an explanation so why can't atheists1:38:08 just appeal to a fruit contingency1:38:11 yeah so you've either got like modal1:38:13 collapse or1:38:15 a a contingent fact that's unexplained1:38:17 basically is his point his point is that1:38:19 well either way and he's just there's1:38:21 just no knowing it's like rodol1:38:23 collapsed really quickly1:38:24 oh more motor1:38:26 so so so what you're saying basically so1:38:28 the idea of motor collapse is that if if1:38:29 you arrive at a necessary fact that1:38:32 explains a contingent fact1:38:35 well1:38:36 if if a necessary fact1:38:38 is you know1:38:40 necessary and sufficient for1:38:43 what it explains well then it just1:38:45 necessitates its explanation so the1:38:47 whole thing just becomes necessary so1:38:48 there's nothing really contingent so1:38:50 even this particle of dust that's1:38:52 floating is necessary had to have been1:38:54 collected in that direction everything1:38:55 exactly yes all right so everything1:38:59 basically would have to exist yeah1:39:01 and and that would be uh yeah so that1:39:03 that's basically the idea of collab so1:39:05 he's like he's like either way you can't1:39:06 really satisfy it because if you go back1:39:08 to the necessary explanation you just1:39:10 necessitate it's uh1:39:12 it's effect and if you go back to a1:39:14 contingent unexplained fact well then1:39:17 how have we really explained anything1:39:19 so1:39:20 there doesn't seem to be a way out that1:39:22 that's the general idea okay so how did1:39:25 you respond to or what was your1:39:29 particular yeah well to that well so the1:39:31 whole yes a little mortal collapse thing1:39:32 is is uh1:39:34 so so1:39:35 like van nuggen raises this against like1:39:37 a strong uh uh uh leibniz and psr1:39:41 right which is where the strong psr uh1:39:44 uh uh1:39:45 is it's claimed to lead to modal1:39:47 collapse where every uh fact has an1:39:50 explanation for why it is and why it is1:39:52 not something like that so it has to1:39:53 every fact has to have this contrastive1:39:55 explanation the very strong psr that1:39:58 leads to i1:39:59 that that does lead to more collapse1:40:01 because there's not going to be any like1:40:03 you know1:40:04 contingency or1:40:06 indeterminacy in the way that uh that1:40:09 that that would basically lead to any1:40:12 leave any room for contingency1:40:14 uh so basically everything becomes1:40:16 necessary and so that's basically his1:40:19 his um1:40:20 his critique and i was then i was1:40:22 discussing like weaker psrs so we don't1:40:24 have to appeal to the stronger one1:40:25 uh and there's so what's the weaker1:40:28 psalms the weaker psi is that1:40:30 all contingent things have a i have an1:40:32 explanation or is it say that most1:40:34 contingent things have an explanation1:40:36 so so they're the they're like1:40:39 leibniz was saying that everything has1:40:41 an inclination including the necessary1:40:43 being isn't it oh necessary yeah so1:40:46 yeah and and like you'd say like the act1:40:48 right so but then the thing is uh and1:40:50 not not not everybody agrees with that1:40:52 anyway so so um the the the idea is for1:40:55 the stronger lobnets and psr the1:40:57 explanation must entail it like it1:41:00 deductively entails1:41:01 its the explanation right it deductively1:41:05 entails what it explains right1:41:07 the cause deductively uh uh entails the1:41:11 effect or the explanation deductively1:41:14 explains you know1:41:15 the the whatever effect it's explaining1:41:18 and uh1:41:19 in that sense if it if it if it really1:41:21 does deductively entail it well then1:41:24 everything is necessary right yeah1:41:26 nothing is contingent well then on the1:41:28 weaker one well then you have a1:41:29 non-necessitating explanation right1:41:32 so so um1:41:34 you have an explanation1:41:36 that is1:41:38 is satisfactory and sufficient but it1:41:40 doesn't necessitate1:41:43 what it's explaining so an example i1:41:45 normally give is1:41:46 do you see me walking around in a mall1:41:49 you know just lost looking for a place1:41:52 to go and you're like hey what are you1:41:53 doing here and i'm like well i'm hungry1:41:55 so i came down here to you know get1:41:57 something to eat1:41:58 well that seems like a good explanation1:42:00 right so you're okay with that1:42:02 explanation but then it's not like the1:42:03 explanation necessitates1:42:06 you know1:42:07 its effect right so so um1:42:09 so i could have been hungry and just1:42:12 eaten something at home1:42:13 or starved myself to death or whatever i1:42:16 mean there could have been many1:42:17 different like outcomes right so it's an1:42:20 explanation but it doesn't like1:42:22 deductively entail1:42:24 what it's explaining and this and the1:42:26 reason i give this example is because um1:42:29 because i mean agency is important here1:42:31 and free will does really come into the1:42:34 discussion1:42:35 when you're talking about uh psrs and1:42:37 and contingency argument god1:42:40 see1:42:40 from uh from our argument we would offer1:42:44 more argument from from a theistic point1:42:46 of view that the whole idea is that the1:42:50 the fact that the1:42:52 universe is contingent and yet it it1:42:56 requires a necessary being1:42:58 and that the continued universe could1:43:00 fail to existed1:43:03 and began to exist1:43:05 for us the best explanation would be1:43:07 free will1:43:09 and would therefore necessitate a god as1:43:11 opposed to a1:43:12 non you know a a naturalistic uh1:43:15 necessary being1:43:18 yeah and and and this is something i1:43:20 wanted to like1:43:21 emphasize towards the end of the1:43:22 discussion but i didn't want to because1:43:25 um1:43:26 alex already would have gave his his1:43:29 final word and i didn't want to like1:43:30 come back with this point it would have1:43:32 seemed like i didn't like i just wanted1:43:33 him to have the last work really but1:43:35 then the the point is that this whole1:43:37 dilemma of like well1:43:39 well well1:43:40 how is it that you have this necessary1:43:42 explanation that you know doesn't1:43:44 necessitate it its outcome or how is it1:43:48 that our theories are any different1:43:49 right so i have this contingent fact uh1:43:53 or no sorry so i have this natural1:43:55 uh necessary thing1:43:57 uh not that he committed to that but1:43:59 just generally speaking speaking broadly1:44:01 like if you take the option view i have1:44:02 this natural necessary thing and you1:44:04 have this supernatural necessary thing1:44:06 and so we have the necessary the1:44:08 contingent the necessary the contingent1:44:11 what differentiates the two well1:44:15 and alex was saying it's a draw i mean1:44:16 what i think what he really was saying1:44:18 is that no the natural the naturalist1:44:21 wins because it's simpler and you're1:44:23 positing this super natural right1:44:26 and1:44:27 obviously i think there are many1:44:28 problems with that i i touched upon a1:44:30 few of them the whole idea of simplicity1:44:32 i think it's like really1:44:33 overstated uh1:44:36 sometimes because because simplicity is1:44:38 really is a tie breaker and and i1:44:40 mentioned this you know in in the1:44:41 discussion saying that well1:44:43 so let's say like so an idealist is1:44:45 simpler1:44:46 so an idealist with only the mental1:44:48 exists you know1:44:51 he doesn't have to pause it everything1:44:53 about the external at least compared to1:44:54 a duelist well so you could say the1:44:56 monus is simpler1:44:57 yeah right so so so but then1:45:00 let's say a solipsist right so solace1:45:02 just says well hey it's just my mental1:45:04 states whatever you say to try to1:45:06 convince me otherwise that's just a1:45:08 figment of my imagination there's1:45:09 nothing you can do to convince me1:45:10 otherwise and you know i can have a you1:45:12 know1:45:13 ultimate theory of1:45:15 reality within my own mind and that's1:45:17 simpler i'm not positing any extra1:45:19 entities why do i need to do that that's1:45:20 pretty simple1:45:22 just doesn't seem reasonable yeah yeah1:45:25 but before we because i want to get onto1:45:26 that point about the explanations and1:45:28 which one provides greater explanatory1:45:30 power but1:45:32 he seems to have a problem alex martha1:45:33 seems to have this problem that1:45:35 okay1:45:36 you have a1:45:37 proposition1:45:39 which1:45:41 is the choice1:45:42 the contingent proposition so it's a1:45:44 contingent proposition1:45:46 and we say okay that that choice to1:45:49 create it wasn't necessary god did not1:45:51 the creator did not have to create1:45:54 he says well that's a contingent1:45:56 proposition which has no explanation1:45:59 whereas it seemed like you were saying1:46:02 no it does have an explanation the1:46:04 explanation is free will it's1:46:06 libertarian free will yeah yeah and this1:46:08 goes back to the discussion about1:46:10 libertarian free will and and like uh1:46:13 contrastive explanation and stuff so so1:46:15 so the idea is like whether and and i1:46:17 think that we discussed it from two1:46:19 angles right so whether you could say1:46:21 that1:46:22 so so i the example i gave was i think1:46:24 so if i choose a coke versus like you1:46:26 know chocolate cake right well i have uh1:46:29 necessary and the necessarily sufficient1:46:31 reasons to choose the coke let's say i1:46:33 like you know the the chocolatey texture1:46:36 of the1:46:38 sorry the the the the fact that the coke1:46:40 is more refreshing as compared to the1:46:41 cake and stuff like that and i'm thirsty1:46:43 uh1:46:44 and so i go for the coke but then i1:46:46 would have also had necessary sufficient1:46:48 reasons right you know and1:46:50 and i can i can contrast that with with1:46:51 the cake like i i i'm like you know i1:46:54 can give it a contrastive explanation1:46:56 like i contrast the the fact that it's1:46:59 refreshing with with whatever the cake1:47:01 is and then1:47:02 you could reverse that as well so the1:47:04 cake texture and stuff like that and the1:47:06 chocolatey taste versus the coke so what1:47:08 you can have explanations1:47:11 and and uh and really there's a1:47:13 discussion about whether all whether1:47:14 whether1:47:15 you know uh1:47:16 libertarian free will can get away with1:47:18 non-contrastive explanation right1:47:20 and uh really it does seem like if1:47:23 anything in our experience1:47:26 uh uh seems to be uh uh you know this1:47:29 kind of like like like you know1:47:31 primitive faculty that kind of explains1:47:33 itself it's like us like initiating1:47:35 action all right i chose because i chose1:47:38 regardless of whether you have reasons1:47:39 or not and this is this is a so this is1:47:41 there are a lot of discussions on this1:47:43 but it seems like from i like our inner1:47:46 most human experience just you just1:47:47 start off with it in your you know1:47:50 experience of the world with this1:47:52 experience of free will even if you say1:47:54 it's an illusion that's not a problem1:47:56 the point is that you have direct1:47:58 experience of this1:48:00 you know capacity to1:48:02 initiate action without being compelled1:48:05 whatever causes have led to a certain1:48:08 choice not necessitating the act you're1:48:10 going to take and that having1:48:13 that that sort of explanation being1:48:15 being satisfactory1:48:16 is something that we have kind of like1:48:18 direct access to okay so let me1:48:20 understand this then so what you were1:48:22 trying to explain is you say look1:48:24 there is something called free will yeah1:48:26 whether free will actually exists with1:48:28 human beings or not is a separate point1:48:31 the fact is that we have an experience1:48:33 of free will1:48:35 the experience of free will is this is1:48:38 that there is nothing external to the1:48:40 human being1:48:41 yeah or to the mind that dictates why1:48:44 the human being makes the choice it's1:48:46 purely his choice yeah1:48:49 so the explanation ultimate explanation1:48:52 as to why he picked coca-cola over1:48:54 chocolate cake was because he chose1:48:57 that's the ultimate explanation it's not1:49:00 he chose because of1:49:02 you know1:49:03 uh his neurons preferred cake i suppose1:49:06 and then you say well why does this1:49:07 neuron because of the chemicals of you1:49:11 know the electronegativity this atom1:49:13 over the atom it's nothing to do with1:49:14 that because then that's deterministic1:49:17 it's rather we have an experience where1:49:18 we talk about human beings making a1:49:21 choice without anything external now if1:49:24 we have that as an experience in terms1:49:27 of how we arrive at free will yeah the1:49:29 concept of free will let's say1:49:32 then if we have an explanation or a1:49:34 proposition which says that this1:49:37 necessary being chose to create1:49:40 why chose because we don't want this1:49:41 what you said before modal collapse so1:49:44 we want this idea that the universe is a1:49:47 contingent being you know could exist1:49:49 could not exist it could exist in1:49:51 another way and you have this necessary1:49:53 being as well who made a contingent1:49:57 choice yeah1:49:59 and that contingent choice therefore1:50:02 would now be explained what we conceive1:50:05 of as free will yeah meaning it came1:50:08 from the agent and didn't require next1:50:11 explanation external to the agent1:50:14 that is what we're calling as free will1:50:16 i don't know if jake's there yeah and1:50:18 you can have1:50:19 sorry1:50:23 yeah and write the example i gave1:50:24 earlier about me being in the mall right1:50:26 so if we accept that non-necessitating1:50:28 explanations or partial explanations uh1:50:30 it can be accepted then well1:50:32 also why did i1:50:35 you know eat the chocolate cake well1:50:36 because i like chocolate cake well does1:50:38 the fact that i like chocolate cake cake1:50:39 necessitate that i'll eat it no so1:50:41 that's a non-necessitating explanation1:50:43 you can say1:50:44 and and and the idea also is that well1:50:48 part of what i explained as well is that1:50:50 um1:50:52 so the the the the1:50:54 proposal proposal sorry the proposition1:50:58 so so uh uh abdul rahman chose to eight1:51:02 or the one eight1:51:03 the chocolate cake right so so that is1:51:05 well question is does that does that1:51:07 have an explanation right does that have1:51:09 a contrastive explanation or is that a1:51:10 contingent fact that requires some kind1:51:12 of external explanation right1:51:14 and and well i was saying that that yes1:51:16 well because even if you say that well i1:51:18 chose i chose to eat it because i chose1:51:20 to eat it right so if i i chose see the1:51:22 chocolate cake because i chose to eat1:51:23 the chocolate cake even if even if you1:51:25 provide that kind of example right for1:51:26 the sake of argument then uh1:51:29 it's not like nothing else needs1:51:30 explanation because who the hell is1:51:32 abdulrahman and who the hell is why does1:51:34 he exist he's the contingent being i1:51:36 mean why does he exist and and1:51:39 when they look at the proposition1:51:41 the necessary being one can use god to1:51:43 make it just clear1:51:45 you can say god so god chose to create1:51:47 the world1:51:48 well then if you accept if you accept1:51:50 that kind of explanation that kind of1:51:51 primitive you know explanation about a1:51:54 non-contrastive explanation about1:51:55 choices that well he chose to create the1:51:56 world because he chose to create the1:51:57 world he had reasons for it1:51:59 non-necessitating reasons but that's1:52:02 that's that's the explanation but the1:52:03 does that mean that1:52:05 there are all there is to it and then1:52:07 does that also mean that we need an1:52:08 external explanation no well because1:52:11 the necess god here is the necessary1:52:13 being we're positing so the necessary1:52:14 being doesn't require an explanation1:52:16 external to himself so the necessary1:52:18 being chose to create the world1:52:20 that choice itself is is is is explained1:52:22 sufficiently as as we've discussed and1:52:25 the necessary being being in existence1:52:27 he well he has to exist so you don't1:52:28 need any explanation external to that1:52:32 and really the question is going to be1:52:33 well so if you can get away with this1:52:34 this kind of explanation about uh you1:52:36 know1:52:37 the fact can i say that you know well1:52:39 hey this you know this contingent1:52:41 can1:52:43 you know just doesn't have an1:52:44 explanation1:52:45 but that's really the question and and1:52:47 and uh1:52:48 what i what i say sometimes is1:52:50 i i think i mentioned this as somebody1:52:52 before that1:52:53 well1:52:54 there just seemed to be a serious1:52:55 difference between let's say1:52:57 uh1:52:58 so assume like libertarian free will and1:53:00 i go to a shop and i choose a coke over1:53:02 a pepsi right so i chose a coke over1:53:04 pepsi and assume libertarian we have1:53:06 libertarian free will and it's this1:53:08 spooky non-deterministic mechanism where1:53:10 we're not necessitated choose so i chose1:53:13 the coke well yeah libertarian free will1:53:15 might be a bit1:53:17 weird but there's nothing confusing1:53:18 really about me choosing the coke over1:53:20 the pepsi right it's just you understand1:53:23 totally just it's just from within your1:53:25 innermost human experience it's very1:53:27 relatable it's just it seems obvious1:53:29 however1:53:30 on the other side with positing some1:53:33 other kind of natural contingent fact1:53:34 that you know doesn't involve free will1:53:37 it seems to me that you'll just have the1:53:38 can of coke you just so you just have a1:53:40 can of coke and and like okay so i mean1:53:44 what about the can of coke right so it1:53:46 seems to be very1:53:47 uh uh reasonable to say well free agent1:53:50 at least from our experience chose the1:53:52 coke over the pepsi right but then1:53:54 all you have in the case of this just1:53:57 natural fact no explanation is just a1:53:59 can of coke right so1:54:02 it did there does seem to be a different1:54:04 so that's why again this is going to go1:54:05 back and we can discuss it later the1:54:07 whole simplicity thing and and and right1:54:09 so1:54:10 i mean i can see on on the basis of1:54:12 simplicity sharif i can1:54:14 say that hey sharif doesn't have to have1:54:17 a mind1:54:18 i i can explain it's a bit radical but1:54:20 it just kind of gets the point across1:54:21 that1:54:23 i can explain all of my interactions1:54:24 with sharif and all of sheriff's1:54:26 behaviors without positing any mind i'm1:54:28 just seeing things happening with1:54:30 emotions and like yeah i'm hearing1:54:32 voices i can explain all of that without1:54:34 positing any kind of subjective1:54:36 experience to you1:54:37 yeah simpler yeah1:54:39 i don't know1:54:41 yeah yeah so but yeah that's the gist of1:54:43 it so yeah1:54:45 in terms of this particular argument1:54:47 because he tried to pick on you1:54:48 initially on this discussion of1:54:50 contingency1:54:51 but in terms of him1:54:53 because he didn't seem to at any point1:54:57 he see i felt when abdul rahman was1:54:59 talking1:55:00 he never addressed1:55:02 abdul1:55:03 about libertarian free will he he talks1:55:06 about determinism he talks about combat1:55:08 compatibilism but he never really1:55:11 addressed it the only thing that he1:55:12 possibly dressed was to say well are you1:55:14 trying to say that human free will is1:55:17 outside of universal laws outside of the1:55:20 universal causal order1:55:25 yeah1:55:26 um1:55:27 i mean i don't know what i can add other1:55:29 than what abdul rahman already said1:55:32 but yeah i don't think he's um really1:55:35 addressed it in a significant way and he1:55:37 did actually mention that at one point1:55:39 what he basically was trying to say well1:55:41 what is it like is it uh does it go1:55:44 against causality is it this sort of1:55:46 contra causal thing and1:55:49 uh no theists don't think that so that's1:55:52 definitely not true1:55:54 but yeah i don't really see1:55:56 any problem with it i don't see how it's1:55:58 analogous to having the total of all of1:56:02 reality being completely unexplained and1:56:04 that1:56:05 it's also contingent1:56:08 so i don't really see a significant1:56:12 analogy between the two positions1:56:14 somebody sent a super chat oh cool um1:56:19 yeah1:56:21 um1:56:22 i don't know how to say the name1:56:24 cece roxy1:56:28 sure but sent a five dollar super chat1:56:30 the idea of a beginningless series of1:56:33 events seems to me to be completely1:56:35 illogical1:56:36 how can there be a series without a1:56:38 first event1:56:40 uh1:56:41 yeah so we talked about that a lot in1:56:43 the beginning of the episode i'm not1:56:45 sure1:56:46 how long roxy was listening1:56:49 but um1:56:50 yeah we agree that it's inconceivable in1:56:53 that way1:56:55 so uh i guess if you want more detail on1:56:58 that you have to scroll back to the1:57:01 beginning1:57:02 so yeah i don't see how there's really1:57:05 any difficulty with the free will act1:57:08 yes it's a contingent act1:57:10 it's1:57:11 explained to the extent that we can1:57:13 explain it as theists1:57:16 uh in that it has1:57:18 a partial explanation which malpass1:57:20 actually in the discussion admitted that1:57:22 he doesn't have a problem with partial1:57:24 explanations1:57:25 but then he was trying to say well wait1:57:27 um1:57:29 see he's trying to draw an analogy1:57:31 between that and the whole of reality1:57:33 being contingent and unexplained1:57:36 well no it's not the same because you1:57:38 don't even have a partial explanation1:57:40 for that whatsoever there's really no1:57:43 uh explanation and so i don't really see1:57:46 how the two theories would be on par at1:57:48 that point1:57:50 okay cool so i think uh yeah definitely1:57:53 it's not on par so i think like i said1:57:55 it it just seemed like1:57:57 yeah you've got this proper this1:57:59 contingent proposition of choosing to1:58:01 create yet so that's fine we don't have1:58:04 a problem with that the explanation1:58:06 is the fact that the neso being is a1:58:08 free willing agent that's the1:58:10 explanation1:58:12 why did the creator choose to create you1:58:15 know this particular world as opposed to1:58:17 another particular world well that1:58:18 doesn't require a further explanation1:58:21 because as soon as you say it's built1:58:22 upon free world that's this that is the1:58:25 explanation uh or the i think the1:58:28 primitive uh1:58:29 was it primitive choice you used uh or1:58:32 primitive explanation of darkmoon that1:58:33 you used1:58:34 in order to explain that1:58:37 i was saying primitive faculty but yeah1:58:39 it's yeah yeah1:58:41 it's the primitive faculty which is the1:58:43 fact that huma that1:58:45 agents can have free choice or free will1:58:48 and1:58:49 you know abu rahman1:58:51 why1:58:52 you didn't seem to sort of ask him his1:58:56 for his definition of libertarian free1:58:58 will1:59:00 oh yeah because okay because it's1:59:04 because of uh1:59:05 dr malpass's approach i think to some of1:59:08 these discussions i don't1:59:10 uh i i don't think he really commits on1:59:12 any of these points and i because i1:59:13 think he's like genuinely like skeptical1:59:17 uh about them1:59:18 uh so so i guess that's why but i1:59:22 believe1:59:24 if i'm mistaken again that he does1:59:27 and maybe in the discussion itself he1:59:28 recognized the uh you know the fact that1:59:30 well our experience or at least our1:59:33 perception of what seems to be a1:59:34 libertarian1:59:36 uh you know1:59:37 free will1:59:39 is1:59:40 there it's genuine1:59:42 uh so so at least like the experiential1:59:45 part i think he definitely acknowledges1:59:46 that but then you're right i mean maybe1:59:48 maybe we could have talked about his1:59:49 views on free will1:59:50 i'm guessing he wouldn't uh take like a1:59:53 strong position on it because it's one1:59:54 of those topics that uh you know1:59:57 yeah it can go either way oh yeah so the1:59:59 other question would be and really2:00:01 quickly on this one as well2:00:03 is that you know there's a lots of2:00:06 arguments that can be used to sort of2:00:09 indicate that the creator has a mind2:00:12 chose to create2:00:13 you know for example indeterminate2:00:16 actions the fact that the universe2:00:19 has a set of laws2:00:23 uh2:00:24 yeah did we discuss that at this point2:00:27 oh you mean this is one of the points i2:00:28 didn't discuss on this yeah2:00:31 yeah yeah well i think2:00:33 maybe i mentioned in passing and maybe2:00:34 that was later but but uh2:00:38 would that have been rel i think because2:00:40 that i think that would have been2:00:41 relevant more like to a stage two2:00:42 discussion because at that point we were2:00:44 just concerned with the explanation part2:00:46 and the psr and how it relates to2:00:48 libertarian free will but then yes of2:00:49 course in in2:00:51 in a stage two discussion you'll bring2:00:53 in the idea of like non-deterministic2:00:55 you know causality and and and you know2:00:58 uh obviously it'll have to do with like2:01:00 you know possible worlds and like you2:01:01 know why this not that contrastive2:01:03 explanation and how a necessary2:01:06 explanation would not necessitate2:01:09 you know2:01:10 what it explains i mean that's that's2:01:12 also a very interesting point right2:01:13 because if you if you have a necessary2:01:15 explanation2:01:17 i mean if it's if it's necessary and2:01:18 sufficient2:01:20 of course we'd have to like get past a2:01:22 few points and we'll have to grant some2:01:23 stuff but then if it's necessary and2:01:25 sufficient2:01:26 for the effect right2:01:28 um2:01:29 then there's really a big question there2:01:31 about well whether we have like an2:01:32 eternal effect2:01:34 or what if if it's temporal and limited2:01:37 and2:01:38 if it could have been otherwise which2:01:39 again will have a lot to do with2:01:40 conceivability and and and and modal2:01:43 theories but if that if that is the case2:01:45 then well there's really a lot to say2:01:46 about free will well why this why not2:01:48 that and how why at this point why2:01:51 temporal why a temporal effect to an2:01:53 eternal uh cause that's that's uh um2:01:56 that's2:01:57 there's a lot to say there but i don't2:01:58 think we got too far in the stage two uh2:02:02 discussion yeah so this would have been2:02:03 more relevant over there yeah personally2:02:05 i didn't you know obviously knowing2:02:07 knowing where the arguments are going to2:02:09 go i didn't find that particular i don't2:02:11 find the argument about2:02:13 you know well you know the necessary2:02:15 being chose to create so that's a2:02:16 proposition which is contingent that2:02:18 doesn't require an expert i don't find2:02:20 that very2:02:21 appealing argument that an atheist would2:02:23 jump to because2:02:25 you know that is actually the argument2:02:27 we use to demonstrate that it's a free2:02:29 willing agent2:02:30 you know that's the argument yeah yeah i2:02:32 mean i mean so he can use it against2:02:34 yeah so he can use it against somebody2:02:36 who holds to a strong psr right like2:02:38 yeah like nitiana but i think even some2:02:40 of the proponents of a live instant psr2:02:42 they have their ways out and they will2:02:44 so so but then it will have a lot of2:02:46 implications on what like what free will2:02:48 is it's it's uh and it'll get into2:02:49 discussions about uh2:02:51 nature2:02:52 so there's a section uh in2:02:55 towards the end of the week we've got2:02:57 one more super chat here go for it's2:02:59 just a comment um and uh we're just2:03:02 putting it on the screen because it's a2:03:05 super chat so i don't want alex to be2:03:08 offended here but um2:03:10 says dr malpass is a smart guy but it2:03:13 seems he does whatever he can2:03:15 to get out of the possibility of god2:03:17 like most atheists2:03:19 so2:03:20 um i'm just going to leave it at that2:03:22 i don't know i don't know if that's true2:03:24 but um2:03:26 yeah i think i think dr alex is is2:03:29 really genuinely skeptical about a lot2:03:31 of stuff2:03:32 and yeah i mean so2:03:35 i mean you know what we we can we can2:03:36 all have uh our biases but yeah i have a2:03:40 lot of respect for dr okay2:03:42 so abdul rahman you asked him the2:03:44 question2:03:45 what does he uh2:03:47 how does he understand contingency as2:03:49 opposed to necessary do you remember2:03:51 that2:03:51 question and he says oh the way we2:03:54 distinguish but you know he physically2:03:56 goes well contingency has an explanation2:03:57 necessary doesn't have an explanation2:03:59 and he said yeah but how do we know2:04:01 whether it requires an explanation of or2:04:03 not and then he says well those things2:04:06 are contingent2:04:08 uh2:04:09 are concrete things all concrete things2:04:12 are contingent things2:04:15 yeah2:04:16 he did say i think i think i think well2:04:18 yeah but that's the psr he committed to2:04:20 but then there's an important part a bit2:04:21 before that where it was about like just2:04:24 and this comes up later2:04:26 at the end of the discussion with jake2:04:27 whether necessary thing2:04:29 you know whether it makes sense to say2:04:31 something explains itself2:04:32 it just it just simply means it has no2:04:34 explanation right2:04:36 and and that that's when i i2:04:40 i was like that well that seems to be a2:04:41 semantic point right2:04:43 it might be more than that but but then2:04:45 we could go with either so we could say2:04:47 that while a necessary thing2:04:49 doesn't have an explanation or we can2:04:51 say it explains itself but when we say2:04:53 it doesn't have an explanation right2:04:56 what we really mean is it doesn't need2:04:57 one2:04:59 and at least that's in terms of like the2:05:00 the necessary uh truth that we know of2:05:03 like uh i think the one we use is a2:05:05 equals a so a equals a doesn't have an2:05:08 explanation2:05:09 and i think what i mentioned comparing2:05:11 that to like a a a contingent2:05:13 proposition like the grass is green2:05:15 it doesn't seem to be the case that if i2:05:16 say a equals a doesn't have an2:05:18 explanation and the grass is green2:05:19 doesn't have an explanation it doesn't2:05:20 seem like those are all with one another2:05:21 right seems like there's a difference2:05:23 and obviously there's the advantage of2:05:25 this one being just you know2:05:26 just just analytic right but then yeah2:05:28 the point here is that uh2:05:31 you could say doesn't have an2:05:33 explanation in two different ways it2:05:34 doesn't have an explanation as in it2:05:36 just is something that's2:05:38 screaming out for an explanation and2:05:39 seems to be the kind of thing that calls2:05:41 for an explanation based on a certain2:05:43 psr or at least a certain hour2:05:45 experience2:05:46 but it just doesn't have one or it seems2:05:48 to be a good candidate for something2:05:50 that doesn't need an explanation i think2:05:52 those are two very different things so2:05:53 this is that2:05:55 yes2:05:56 so on jake on this point i don't know if2:05:57 you caught what he oh remembered what he2:06:00 said he said that2:06:01 the way we identify contingent things is2:06:03 that they're concrete so all concrete2:06:05 things are contingent2:06:07 now from my unders2:06:09 when i was listening to that i was2:06:10 thinking well he's not really explained2:06:12 why2:06:14 uh things require an explanation he's2:06:16 just simply2:06:17 you know in a almost circularity type of2:06:20 a way2:06:21 or he's just simply substituting2:06:23 contingent with for concrete he's saying2:06:25 well concrete things are contingent well2:06:27 why are they contingent he didn't really2:06:29 explain that i don't know if you caught2:06:30 that point2:06:32 yeah i mean to use that principle to say2:06:34 that all2:06:36 uh2:06:36 concrete objects are contingent2:06:40 well why why why do you think that2:06:42 uh yeah he never really answered that2:06:44 question we didn't to be fair i don't2:06:46 think we really raised it or got into it2:06:49 but um yeah that is a point that i think2:06:53 we should have gotten into2:06:54 so could he say well the reason why we2:06:56 can say all concrete things are2:06:58 contingent is because in the actual2:07:00 world the concrete realities that we2:07:03 sense2:07:04 are all contingent2:07:10 uh say that last part again so could he2:07:13 say well the reason why we say oh oh the2:07:15 reason why he believes all concrete2:07:17 things are contingent is because in the2:07:18 actual world2:07:20 all the concrete things that we2:07:22 experience are all contingent2:07:24 yeah but how does he know that2:07:28 because experience2:07:30 that's what i see2:07:32 yeah but so it would seem that he would2:07:35 have to identify2:07:37 some property about these concrete2:07:40 objects2:07:41 that he thinks2:07:42 uh2:07:43 leads to towards them being contingent2:07:47 uh2:07:48 he sees water boiling and it required2:07:51 the fire beneath it so2:07:54 i mean it seems like what that statement2:07:56 would would result in is just simply i2:07:58 mean obviously this is obvious but just2:08:00 what it implies is that while there's no2:08:02 necessary concrete thing2:08:04 well the whole argument though2:08:05 contingency argument is about clearly a2:08:07 concrete necessity right2:08:09 um2:08:11 and and uh i think the problem the2:08:13 problem yeah2:08:14 no i'm gonna say his this is more i2:08:17 think it's more to do with his2:08:18 understanding of the psr isn't it which2:08:20 is that he's trying to2:08:22 he's trying to say that those things2:08:24 that require an explanation of concrete2:08:26 things2:08:27 i'm assuming now i'm assuming the reason2:08:30 why he's saying that is because he's2:08:31 saying well in the actual world they2:08:32 didn't obviously we didn't you guys2:08:34 didn't go into the discussion of it but2:08:36 i'm assuming it's because in the actual2:08:37 world2:08:38 here's a line of reasoning that he could2:08:40 possibly take in the actual world we see2:08:43 concrete things and the concrete things2:08:44 that we see requiring explanation2:08:46 outside of themselves as to why they2:08:49 exist2:08:50 therefore2:08:52 concrete things are the things that are2:08:53 contingent things2:08:55 but2:08:56 i think the problem is and i think you2:08:58 mentioned it abdulrahman in the2:09:00 discussion about global skepticism that2:09:03 if experience is the only way to2:09:06 determine whether something has an2:09:09 explanation or not2:09:11 then ultimately2:09:13 you'll fall into global skepticism2:09:17 yeah i just want to address one thing2:09:19 real quick2:09:20 jake are you british or american2:09:24 that's a bit uh that's a bit insulting2:09:26 jsk if you haven't heard that that seems2:09:29 like one of those things that should be2:09:31 self-explanatory if anything no man2:09:34 it's necessary that i'm american i'm not2:09:37 a brit come on dude2:09:39 so yeah i just wanted to address it and2:09:41 one other thing real quick2:09:43 can you guys invite matt dillahunty um2:09:47 can he unlock us i don't think that's2:09:49 gonna happen because for whatever reason2:09:52 we recently found out that our uh2:09:54 thought adventure podcast twitter2:09:56 account has been blocked by matt de la2:09:58 hunty2:09:59 uh we're not entirely sure why it may2:10:02 have something to do with2:10:04 uh what happened with on raw i don't i2:10:06 have no idea but um yeah unfortunately i2:10:09 don't i don't see that happening anytime2:10:11 but if you what if he wants to come on2:10:14 he's welcome more than willing to bring2:10:16 him on we'd love to have him discussion2:10:18 here today um but yeah so just on this2:10:21 global skepticism because2:10:23 you can't really appeal to experience in2:10:26 order to justify2:10:27 psr2:10:28 can you yeah so okay yeah so i think2:10:31 what he would be saying really just to2:10:33 meet the challenge because i told him2:10:35 well you need uh the challenge is you2:10:37 need an an a priori way to to to2:10:40 distinguish or to so you know yeah2:10:44 to know what is contingent what has an2:10:46 explanation so so the thing2:10:49 oh my god2:10:50 okay2:10:51 yeah so so2:10:53 so the problem is so i think he would2:10:55 just say that he'll say well i a prior i2:10:57 know that everything's contingent uh2:10:59 that sorry that every concrete thing is2:11:00 contingent2:11:01 now i mean i i don't think really he was2:11:04 very serious about that because i don't2:11:07 i i i don't think we can uh i don't2:11:10 think2:11:11 i don't think that's obvious but but2:11:12 okay uh the the thing is it it leads to2:11:16 um2:11:17 the problems that we were mentioning2:11:19 earlier that that that dr malves himself2:11:20 mentioned about well2:11:22 first of all the well these contingent2:11:24 apart from the skepticism problem which2:11:25 i'm going to come to but it leads to the2:11:26 idea well then well so if there's a2:11:28 finite past which i think if dr moffat2:11:31 does favor a2:11:33 a a2:11:34 you know a causal feminism which is2:11:36 something i it just slipped my mind that2:11:37 i should have asked because well if if2:11:39 if you do favor causal finitism well2:11:41 then how is it this infinite series of2:11:43 concrete things how is that plausible so2:11:46 many a finite series well if it's a2:11:47 finite series2:11:49 well then there seems to be that worry2:11:50 that but there's this initial contingent2:11:52 thing well then how have you really2:11:54 explained anything in the series if if2:11:56 um if if there's no explanation for that2:11:59 first one uh and uh and i've seen dr2:12:02 malpas himself raise his concern i think2:12:05 i think it was maybe it was in the2:12:06 discussion about this specifically that2:12:08 well that's the problem with a2:12:09 contingent beginning and then you have2:12:10 the other problem with the necessary2:12:12 right so and then if you have the2:12:14 infinite series well again then how have2:12:16 you explained2:12:17 whatever contingent factor you want to2:12:19 explain right now if if it's going to2:12:21 regress in that way and then there's the2:12:23 problem also of causal feminism and2:12:25 infinite past that's that's a whole2:12:26 other kind of worms but then i think he2:12:28 does2:12:29 favor causal finitism then there's the2:12:31 other skeptical problem whether it2:12:33 really does get you out of that right2:12:35 because because um2:12:37 it it it seems like uh it wouldn't and i2:12:39 think i raised that with him in the2:12:41 discussion because it doesn't uh um2:12:43 the idea is for you to rule out these2:12:46 skeptical scenarios where your2:12:48 immediate experience can be uh2:12:51 can be necessary or your you know2:12:53 immediate like a a single frame of your2:12:55 mental states can be necessary with all2:12:58 the memories in it like implanted or2:12:59 just a necessary fact and one of the2:13:02 things i didn't raise because there's a2:13:03 lot of nuance on whether it is to be2:13:04 abstract and jake i might be thinking2:13:07 like i might be a bit off track here so2:13:09 correct me if i'm wrong i'm sure you2:13:11 please correct me from wrong as well the2:13:13 the whole because there's there's2:13:15 there's a disagreement uh the genuine2:13:17 disagreement about like what it is for2:13:19 something to be abstract what it what it2:13:21 is for something to be concrete2:13:24 now it seems like one of the ways of2:13:26 looking at uh one of the main features2:13:28 of something abstract that's it's it's a2:13:30 causal uh it's it's it doesn't stand and2:13:33 cause all relation to anything2:13:35 right so it's not a physical thing it2:13:36 doesn't stand on cause relation to2:13:37 anything2:13:38 i don't know if i can ask that question2:13:40 whether well hey your mental state2:13:41 you're just one mental state well why2:13:43 can't it be abstract i think it's a2:13:44 weird question but then if we're2:13:46 identical because really what the hell2:13:48 are abstract things but if we're2:13:49 identifying2:13:51 if that's an identifying feature of2:13:53 abstract things that they just don't2:13:54 stand and cause our relations with2:13:55 anything well how do you know that this2:13:57 single mental state stands and calls a2:13:58 relation to anything how do you know it2:14:00 is not abstract2:14:02 uh i don't i don't know if there's2:14:03 something there but2:14:05 it just really depends on how you think2:14:06 of abstract things i mean i don't think2:14:08 it's uh2:14:09 i don't think you can think of it in any2:14:11 way but whether an experience that's2:14:13 non-causal and non-concrete can be2:14:15 abstract i i don't know2:14:17 um2:14:18 but that that again might uh2:14:21 yeah i don't know so because generally2:14:23 we see mental like our mental activity2:14:25 and stuff like that as concrete so i2:14:27 don't know if there's something there2:14:33 uh was there a question2:14:36 yeah yeah the whole idea yeah so yes so2:14:39 generally i heard everything you said2:14:42 yeah i'm just okay okay here's the2:14:44 punchline question2:14:46 could a mental state be abstract just2:14:49 take take like agent causation and the2:14:51 physical so so it can't it's not a2:14:53 candidate at all right i don't think so2:14:55 now2:14:56 so if we just say abstract things if2:14:58 like the only feature of an abstract2:14:59 thing is that it doesn't stand in cause2:15:00 or relation to anything and it's not2:15:02 physical2:15:03 um2:15:05 what is it about a mental state that2:15:07 cannot be abstract2:15:10 that why an uh mental state can't be2:15:13 abstract you said yeah so if if all we2:15:15 say is it's like all if the way we2:15:18 define ourselves in causal relations no2:15:20 yeah but so what i'm saying is just rule2:15:21 that out so to put the causal relation2:15:23 side out because we're thinking of a2:15:25 single like solipsistic state like a2:15:27 single mental state well there's no2:15:29 you're not really you don't really know2:15:30 that you're standing called relation to2:15:31 anything that's the point that's the2:15:32 point of the skeptical scenario right2:15:34 and it's it's it's not physical your2:15:36 mental state is not physical it doesn't2:15:38 stand and cause a relation2:15:40 so how do you know it's not abstract2:15:42 you're just saying one mental state2:15:45 yeah that's that is the idea right that2:15:47 is it's just one mental state it's not a2:15:49 series of mental states because you know2:15:51 you don't know whether you had mental2:15:53 states in the past the the the the2:15:55 challenge is about like just this single2:15:58 solid cystic state2:16:02 i don't i think i think it's far-fetched2:16:03 i don't it's just me2:16:06 just thinking i'll stop my head but i2:16:07 don't want the loss to be honest yeah2:16:10 yeah yeah maybe maybe i can uh i can2:16:12 look into that a bit further but i just2:16:14 think it's about really whether there is2:16:16 just this blurry line2:16:17 between2:16:19 abstract and concrete when it does come2:16:21 to2:16:22 uh non-physical things so i i don't know2:16:25 about that but uh but yeah so there is2:16:28 that so there is the skeptical worry2:16:30 that i don't think his psr gets over and2:16:33 there's also the fact that well it2:16:35 doesn't really explain anything as per2:16:37 his own criteria right2:16:40 i mean the the2:16:42 concrete is something2:16:43 typically usually also in time as well2:16:49 so2:16:50 i can imagine2:16:52 a2:16:54 single mental state that's in time2:16:58 but2:16:59 it doesn't seem like2:17:00 the abstract number one is in time2:17:05 but what does it mean to be in time2:17:06 there needs to be change right i think2:17:07 this is going to take us down2:17:09 there needs to be changed how do you2:17:10 know there's change if you if you can't2:17:12 trust your memory so well yeah my i2:17:15 don't my view is that2:17:17 there doesn't need to be change in order2:17:19 for you to be timed but yeah okay okay2:17:21 okay okay yeah that that yeah okay fine2:17:24 fine so2:17:25 yeah exactly so let's let's not go down2:17:27 there if we can move yeah2:17:29 yeah let's move on really quickly so i2:17:30 think the issue that i think in terms of2:17:33 his he didn't really give an explanation2:17:35 to that question you asked him which is2:17:36 what makes something contingent2:17:39 or what makes us identify something is2:17:41 contingent by just simply saying it's2:17:43 concrete2:17:44 it doesn't really provide an explanation2:17:46 for that he just simply and i don't2:17:49 think you guys really pursued i think it2:17:50 would have been good if you pursued him2:17:52 upon that particular position of why he2:17:54 believed concrete things are2:17:57 contingent things uh regardless of that2:17:59 and i think there's a problem because i2:18:01 think you identified the problem to say2:18:03 that the psr has to be2:18:06 a priori assumed yeah as an axiom of2:18:10 thought before you2:18:12 uh2:18:13 you know engage in you know your2:18:15 rational thinking or your scientific2:18:17 inquiry and to me it goes back to what2:18:20 jake said earlier which is that it seems2:18:22 to reduce back to conceivability2:18:25 yeah as being the only viable option to2:18:28 determine what's possible and therefore2:18:30 what requires an explanation if it's2:18:32 conceivable2:18:34 in one particular way then it requires2:18:35 an explanation and we'll talk about that2:18:37 later on let's go to the final part2:18:39 because we've got another super2:18:41 challenge2:18:43 yeah2:18:44 yeah uh2:18:45 mr roxy uh what are all your backgrounds2:18:48 in philosophy i am impressed with all2:18:51 you guys i enjoyed listening to you2:18:53 as a non-muslim uh yusuf's not here2:18:56 actually i didn't2:18:58 touch base with him again but um2:19:01 yousef and i have uh2:19:03 a bachelor's in philosophy so that's as2:19:07 far as2:19:09 you know education background goes but2:19:12 then all of us uh you know2:19:14 read a lot of philosophy in our own time2:19:18 so that's really the extent of it2:19:21 there was another person here you you2:19:23 guys can answer if you want but there's2:19:24 another guy here2:19:26 seems he claims we're wasting time2:19:29 you guys are getting nowhere i called it2:19:31 all on pascal stream everything i said2:19:35 came to pass2:19:36 so apparently he's come on the2:19:39 pascal's wager stream and said that we2:19:41 were wasting time2:19:43 uh this brother just his brother just2:19:45 doesn't is he thinks philosophy is a2:19:46 waste of time and he can get us nowhere2:19:48 none of these arguments work he's a he's2:19:50 a muslim but okay you can have that view2:19:52 all right2:19:53 he's going to say2:19:55 when he came on he said he's tapped he2:19:57 actually come on the stream2:19:59 on the pascal wages yeah2:20:01 okay2:20:04 yeah i know you're not yeah yeah yeah2:20:06 you weren't it wasn't there for pascal2:20:08 wager but i just want to say this to the2:20:09 guy2:20:10 if we're wasting so much time and you2:20:12 called it2:20:14 over a month ago now2:20:16 what are you still doing here2:20:19 because you know that we're wasting time2:20:22 yet you're here wasting your own time2:20:25 that sounds like a contradiction my2:20:27 friend2:20:28 yeah fine i just want to address it2:20:31 because we're here we're here we're we2:20:34 we put out our material you either like2:20:36 it or you don't if you don't like it2:20:38 that's fine you don't have to watch2:20:40 nobody's holding you guys down to watch2:20:42 those who enjoy it2:20:45 if you don't2:20:46 don't watch us go go watch something2:20:48 else maybe watch a football match or2:20:50 something2:20:52 mr simon is a nice guy he came on he's a2:20:55 nice guy he sports and everything but he2:20:56 just has this view that there's no2:20:58 there's just no point and there's no way2:21:00 to you know basically adjudicate between2:21:02 any of these different2:21:04 uh uh positions2:21:06 uh2:21:07 that that that you know which one is2:21:09 right which one's wrong that just2:21:10 obviously seems to beg the question2:21:11 because we think that some are really2:21:13 wrong some are really right but then the2:21:14 point here is that2:21:16 in order for you to argue for that like2:21:18 in order for you to provide a case for2:21:20 that and you're2:21:22 a in order for you to say how you2:21:24 rationalize your belief in god and islam2:21:26 well you're going to be doing reasoning2:21:28 as well which is not like aliens yeah we2:21:30 actually we got a yeah we got a previous2:21:33 guest who's been on the show several2:21:35 times2:21:36 mr carlos jeffers who's an agnostic or2:21:39 atheist whatever he wants to call2:21:40 himself he said deaf agree with2:21:42 definitely agree with the super chat2:21:44 i've definitely learned a lot since this2:21:47 channel started so2:21:48 there you go2:21:50 some people enjoy it some people enjoy2:21:52 it some people don't senate yes i don't2:21:54 know what i can tell you i mean2:21:57 and and our friend justin of course now2:21:59 known as2:22:00 we've been having philosophical2:22:01 discussions with him and he handles a2:22:04 muslim right now so it works for some2:22:05 people maybe it doesn't work for you and2:22:07 that's fine i don't think any of this is2:22:09 necessary by the way in that sense but2:22:11 then in the realm of like you know2:22:13 uh like whilst we have religion and2:22:15 apologetics and stuff like that where2:22:16 there are back and forth arguments and2:22:18 some people do get affected by them if2:22:20 you're interested in responding2:22:22 you can look at the material and choose2:22:24 to respond if you're not then yeah you2:22:26 don't have to2:22:27 so yeah we still love you don't worry2:22:31 right let's quickly go last couple of2:22:33 points that we need to sort of address2:22:34 the the last parts of it so okay finally2:22:38 uh2:22:39 was there agreement towards the end of2:22:42 the discussion2:22:44 we released i think what we released i2:22:47 think the brothers2:22:48 uh2:22:49 there was a section at the end2:22:51 that seemed to2:22:54 you where jake said well you know we2:22:55 seem to be coming towards some2:22:58 we've come to some sort of closer2:23:00 position2:23:02 what's that all about yeah yeah and i2:23:04 gotta tell you guys because i actually2:23:07 um i actually watched the clip and2:23:12 i honestly think we didn't clip out2:23:14 enough2:23:15 i think that it should have been clipped2:23:17 out a few minutes prior to it2:23:20 to show how we got to the point where we2:23:22 were2:23:23 um2:23:26 yeah i2:23:27 so the2:23:29 did you want to say something sharif no2:23:31 i was going to say so in essence you you2:23:33 asked him the question2:23:35 how did you start off sorry you start2:23:37 well but that's what i'm saying i think2:23:38 it's important to really see that2:23:41 uh2:23:42 because2:23:44 i don't know exactly what point we2:23:46 clipped out in the video2:23:48 but2:23:49 i think it was a bit too2:23:52 short yeah it was too short because you2:23:54 don't see how i actually got malpass to2:23:57 that position which is one of the2:23:59 important things that i wanted to bring2:24:00 up i'm almost tempted to to just play a2:24:03 few minutes from when that happened2:24:05 because2:24:06 it go it coincides with what we were2:24:09 talking about earlier about him taking2:24:11 positions or playing the game so to2:24:15 speak and using objections and i came in2:24:18 and i said okay well hold on a second2:24:19 you're saying this now it seems to2:24:21 conflict with what you were saying2:24:22 before here's the contradiction and he2:24:25 said2:24:26 oh yeah yeah i see what you're saying2:24:28 and he agreed that2:24:30 he essentially2:24:32 with all due respect contradicted2:24:34 himself2:24:35 twice2:24:36 uh one and i pointed it out and then he2:24:38 had to revise and i said okay well now2:24:40 we're back to square one so2:24:43 i okay let's put the game plane aside2:24:46 what are you actually saying what's your2:24:48 actual position that you're representing2:24:51 and then boom and then we slowly went2:24:53 into it and then i2:24:54 worked it up to the for the next 15-202:24:57 minutes to when it culminated in2:25:01 him2:25:02 basically coming to the point2:25:04 that2:25:05 uh concrete existence is necessary now2:25:09 what does that mean2:25:10 he means to say2:25:12 when we were just talking about things2:25:13 that are concrete2:25:16 no particular like for example this pen2:25:19 it's not irrelevant in this case this2:25:21 pen2:25:22 is2:25:22 concrete and it's also contingent right2:25:26 uh so is my microphone so is my phone2:25:29 they're they're concrete objects2:25:31 and they're not uh they're not necessary2:25:33 they're contingent2:25:35 just in case ap wanted to know but2:25:38 in any case2:25:40 these concrete objects2:25:42 each particular one of them is2:25:45 contingent but the category or what i2:25:48 said the genus the class2:25:51 the category of concreteness or concrete2:25:54 existence that is necessary2:25:57 that's just to say2:25:59 that in any possible world2:26:02 at least one concrete object must exist2:26:06 and the reason why he's saying that is2:26:08 because of his aristotelian2:26:10 understanding2:26:11 of possible worlds that any possible2:26:14 world is going to have to be branching2:26:17 off of the actual world and in the2:26:20 actual world concrete objects exist2:26:23 therefore in any possible world at least2:26:26 one concrete object has to exist and so2:26:29 that's that's the point in which2:26:32 we came to2:26:33 i said anyway uh2:26:36 not in a total agreement but we came2:26:38 closer to one another in that he's2:26:40 saying that concrete existence is2:26:42 necessary the difference is2:26:44 instead of the class in general being2:26:47 necessary2:26:48 us muslims or theists are specifying a2:26:52 particular concrete being from that set2:26:56 and saying that is the necessary being2:26:59 and the rest of the concrete objects2:27:01 flow from his creation or his will and2:27:04 they are all contingent2:27:06 so so let me because i2:27:08 i need2:27:09 might be good to actually replay that uh2:27:12 some of the particular clips but i2:27:14 honestly think2:27:25 yeah let me let me let me see this here2:27:28 share screen so 239 two hours 39. yeah2:27:31 but i'm saying it's it's got to go2:27:33 before that that's fine no no that's2:27:35 that's the that's the original uh back2:27:37 and forth that's when he started2:27:39 no we didn't flip it we didn't2:27:42 yeah i'm telling you i'm telling you2:27:44 it's before that here2:27:46 let me show you2:27:48 because here's where i start talking2:27:51 let's let me show you2:27:53 okay you can see the screen2:27:55 let's uh play it here jake if you wanna2:27:58 say something i'm gonna mute but uh alex2:28:00 you can open my first2:28:02 well i think i think the reply is that i2:28:03 probably need to go and read the paper2:28:05 again to have a clear remember yeah yeah2:28:07 that's fine what you were saying then in2:28:09 that case yeah that's fine uh so jake2:28:11 you you wanted to say something sorry2:28:13 for2:28:13 yeah i'm just trying to understand the2:28:15 overall picture it seems like we have an2:28:17 infinite amount of things2:28:20 in alex's framework all of which are2:28:23 contingent2:28:24 and you know it's this kind of chain of2:28:26 one explaining the other um2:28:29 but i'm wondering if you2:28:31 it seems like you're not accepting the2:28:33 strong psr uh i don't know if you would2:28:35 endorse the weak psr or what sort of2:28:37 principle are you working with or you2:28:39 just don't have any principle at all2:28:41 well2:28:44 you see that you see why that's2:28:45 important where i started out earlier my2:28:47 my very first question into him is well2:28:50 wait it seems like you're not accepting2:28:52 a strong psr are you accepting the weak2:28:54 psr and they say2:28:56 well what principle are you actually2:28:58 working with what principle what uh2:29:00 explanatory principle are you actually2:29:03 endorsing that's my first question2:29:05 that's how it started out you see2:29:07 because i came in i said well what's i2:29:09 didn't say it yet at that point but it2:29:11 winds up coming out that the reason i'm2:29:14 asking is because you don't seem to be2:29:16 clear on what you're actually saying you2:29:18 see that's why in my opinion you have to2:29:21 start back here to really see the2:29:24 progression of the conversation complete2:29:26 keep playing it then yeah double speed2:29:28 it not double speed2:29:32 yeah yeah it's on one and a half working2:29:33 mode2:29:34 don't have any principle at all well2:29:36 i mean let's just be so quickly about it2:29:38 i'm not really like saying i think this2:29:40 is true but i guess i'm saying i don't2:29:41 see how you wrote this option out right2:29:43 like to prevent2:29:45 see there you go this is what and i'm2:29:47 not gonna do my good friend youssef2:29:49 ponders i'm not going to do his thing2:29:50 where i pause every five minutes five2:29:52 seconds i love you bro but what i'm what2:29:55 i am gonna do is i'm gonna pause here to2:29:58 tell you2:30:00 notice his answer his initial answer2:30:03 he's scratching his head there but his2:30:05 his initial answer is2:30:07 well2:30:08 i'm not really taking a position i'm2:30:10 just saying this to show that it's not2:30:13 impossible you see this is what i'm2:30:15 saying you guys should have started it2:30:17 back here bro2:30:19 then the argument going through you just2:30:21 need to have2:30:22 one of the various horns that were2:30:24 presented at the beginning uh still on2:30:26 the table and you haven't managed to2:30:27 argue by elimination to the necessity of2:30:30 like the necessary cause version and2:30:32 steps up i'm not saying like i believe2:30:34 this is my view i'm just saying2:30:36 what's wrong with this view so it's a2:30:37 strong psr view every contingent event2:30:40 strongly explains the next one um and2:30:43 there's just infinitely many of them2:30:44 there's no stopping point and then the2:30:45 classic objection to this is something2:30:46 like yeah but what explains the whole2:30:48 sequence why this whole sequence will2:30:50 have another whole sequence and i guess2:30:51 my reply was saying well the explanation2:30:53 of the whole sequence is just the2:30:54 conjunction of each of the elements2:30:55 themselves so what explains p it's q2:30:57 well explains q it's r2:30:59 so like the explanation of l sequence2:31:00 just basically is um2:31:02 the individual explanations for each2:31:04 element in the sequence now if that's2:31:06 right then there's nothing that's not2:31:06 explained each thing is explained each2:31:09 part of the whole is explained and if2:31:10 each hole is explained then the whole is2:31:12 explained um and i i was arguing well i2:31:15 mean i guess i was saying look if you2:31:17 think that in general whenever you have2:31:20 like a set or something that's got like2:31:21 elements to it that you have to have2:31:23 more than just the explanation of each2:31:25 of the individual parts to have an2:31:26 explanation of that hole then i deny2:31:28 that principle and here's the counter2:31:29 example me having coffee for breakfast2:31:31 and caesar wearing one slipper it's2:31:33 impossible to suppose there's some third2:31:35 thing which explains that apart over and2:31:36 above the individual explanation from my2:31:38 having coffee and the individual2:31:39 explanation for caesar and one slipper2:31:41 once you've given those two explanations2:31:42 that's it you're done there's nothing2:31:44 else to say about it right each appears2:31:46 some strong psr is satisfied there's no2:31:47 contingency that's what i want to be2:31:49 clear on so then you are you're you are2:31:50 accepting the strong psr uh in your2:31:52 explanation well because what i'm doing2:31:54 is i'm agitating against the argument2:31:56 i'm saying let's suppose the peers2:31:58 strong psr is true um but how did you2:32:00 eliminate this2:32:01 idea that there's a never-ending2:32:02 sequence of explanations because in2:32:04 order for the argument to be successful2:32:05 you have to eliminate all of the other2:32:06 options it's an argument by elimination2:32:08 right yeah i get that but i'm i'm asking2:32:11 at this point because i'm listening for2:32:12 quite a while i'm asking at this point2:32:14 if that's the view you um2:32:17 obviously you're i'm not saying that you2:32:18 have to commit to it but i'm saying is2:32:19 that the view that you lean towards or2:32:21 are you just responding this way in2:32:22 virtue of the argument and you you2:32:24 really have no confidence in strong psr2:32:26 whatsoever yeah that's what i'm asking2:32:27 you2:32:28 so just project you've posed that sorry2:32:30 so listen listen what i'm doing yeah2:32:31 listen what i'm doing i'm saying2:32:34 okay now2:32:35 i've i've kind of2:32:37 pulled the mask off here and i'm saying2:32:39 what's behind the mask and you're you're2:32:42 admitting at this point that you're not2:32:44 really adopting the view you're just2:32:46 using it for the sake of argument sake2:32:48 of discussion but you don't really hold2:32:50 it yourself2:32:51 and i pressed him once i pressed him2:32:53 twice now i'm pressing a third time but2:32:55 what actually is your view my brother2:32:58 that's that's what i'm asking here you2:33:00 see but but he also he also mentioned2:33:02 the point about he's appealing to the2:33:04 strong psr2:33:06 exactly and that's going to come up2:33:08 later yeah go ahead and then he also2:33:10 said that uh he talked about how2:33:12 in essence you can have an infinite2:33:14 regress2:33:16 of explanations of the individual parts2:33:20 you don't need to explain that whole2:33:22 you just have an infinite regressive2:33:24 explanation of parts2:33:27 even though he's a cause2:33:29 yeah and exactly and he in in this2:33:32 exchange he wind up he winds up2:33:34 abandoning that position you see because2:33:37 all previous to when i started talking2:33:40 he was using that and then it comes out2:33:42 clearly he says listen what i'm2:33:44 defending is because each of the part is2:33:46 explained therefore the whole is also2:33:49 explained and he says well the common2:33:51 objection is no just because the parts2:33:53 are explained the whole is not explained2:33:55 and then he winds up through this2:33:57 sequence of conversation here he winds2:34:00 up saying no okay that doesn't actually2:34:02 work i was just using that in the2:34:05 discussion as the argument okay now now2:34:08 we're back to square one so now since2:34:10 that objection is gonna work what's your2:34:12 position gonna wind up being and we'll2:34:14 see that but i want to keep playing2:34:16 inshallah2:34:18 invocation of principle for the purposes2:34:20 of2:34:21 arguing against the success of this2:34:23 contingency argument it's not like i2:34:24 believe in it myself yes so my question2:34:26 is then what's your actual position on2:34:27 the strong psr2:34:29 well i mean2:34:33 so as i said in the first place this2:34:34 kind of modal collapse argument makes2:34:35 you think that either the strong psr is2:34:38 false or everything is necessary or well2:34:42 you know actually that's it that's2:34:43 either there's some case response or2:34:44 everything's necessary so2:34:45 um2:34:48 if i have to pick out those two i guess2:34:50 i don't think everything is necessary i2:34:51 mean i guess i reject strongly2:34:52 assumptions because otherwise i feel2:34:53 like i have to project i have to accept2:34:55 that everything is necessary that seems2:34:56 wrong so2:35:01 so note here because sharif he just said2:35:04 that when i accused him before are you2:35:06 accepting or rejecting the strong psr he2:35:08 said well the model i'm proposing2:35:10 fulfills a strong psr because everything2:35:13 is being explained now when i'm asking2:35:15 okay what's your actual view on a strong2:35:17 psr he's saying well i guess if the2:35:19 strong psr leads to motor collapse and i2:35:22 don't think is everything is necessary2:35:24 well then between those two i'm going to2:35:26 reject the strong psr because i don't2:35:29 think everything is necessary well now2:35:31 we're back to square one what actually2:35:33 is going to your be your position2:35:35 because before you were defending2:35:37 something that assumed the strong psr2:35:39 you see so and i i bring this out in the2:35:42 discussion here so2:35:43 let's continue why is that given what2:35:45 you've just said um the explanation you2:35:48 gave seemed to affirm the strong psr and2:35:50 yet everything is contingent not2:35:51 everything is necessary2:35:54 well2:35:55 i mean okay that's that's fair so i2:35:57 suppose there's another kind of2:35:58 dimension to the strong psr the first2:35:59 one is that uh2:36:01 is that explanation is necessitating um2:36:07 um okay what's the right way to put this2:36:09 thing so then2:36:11 yeah so i suppose what i'm saying is2:36:13 if you think that okay so here's another2:36:15 way to put this right okay let me let me2:36:17 let me try to be more specific i guess2:36:18 what i'm saying on this human view that2:36:20 there's a never ending well never2:36:21 beginning sequence of contingent events2:36:23 each one explains the next is that you2:36:25 do just say there's no explanation of2:36:27 the talent of contingent reality that's2:36:29 just unexplained um you just but you2:36:32 deny that what i was trying to do is2:36:34 sort of deny the original motivation uh2:36:37 pushes you to that second claim that you2:36:38 have to accept you have to explain at2:36:40 the whole of contingent reality but2:36:41 let's suppose2:36:42 i suppose what i'm saying is that the2:36:44 strongest version of the psr as both of2:36:46 the2:36:47 explanations entailment2:36:49 uh the whole of continuing reality has2:36:51 has that type of explanation now that if2:36:54 you hold those things then you get this2:36:56 fanning wagon uh2:36:58 argument which is which is effectively2:37:00 that um i suppose suppose within this2:37:02 like shape here a circle or something2:37:04 i'm joining as their whole of contingent2:37:05 reality absolutely every contingent fact2:37:07 right is content within this area now if2:37:10 that has a necessitating explanation for2:37:12 it then it can't be from a contingent2:37:14 thing it has to be from a necessary2:37:15 thing because we just said every2:37:16 contingent thing is within this area and2:37:18 also self-explanation seems incoherent2:37:20 right so2:37:21 i guess that's another aspect of this2:37:23 i'm assuming self-explanation isn't2:37:24 coherent but that seems pretty obvious2:37:25 um2:37:26 well then it follows that the2:37:27 explanation must be necessary if2:37:29 excavation is the necessitation relation2:37:38 now i want to point out notice what he2:37:40 did there when i pressed him on the2:37:43 strong psr what did he wind up saying2:37:46 he wound up getting rid of that argument2:37:49 the human argument because he said well2:37:52 i guess i was trying to avoid the2:37:54 conclusion that the whole is not2:37:56 explained but then he wound up admitting2:37:59 well yes i guess on the human view the2:38:01 whole is left unexplained2:38:04 you see you see what i'm saying sharif2:38:06 because he yeah2:38:08 yeah yes2:38:09 he because he explicitly said that2:38:12 he said he was saying well the whole is2:38:14 explained2:38:16 now when i'm pressing him on his modal2:38:18 theory he's admitting that the the whole2:38:21 is not explained and so now he's2:38:24 admitting that well because i don't want2:38:26 to say everything is necessary the whole2:38:28 is contingent and that's unexplained and2:38:31 then well that causes the problem well2:38:32 now you have this contingent fact which2:38:35 is all of reality that is left2:38:37 unexplained which is what i start2:38:39 questioning in a bit2:38:43 the infinite series of contingent things2:38:44 that seems like that's uh2:38:45 that's a self-explanatory at least when2:38:46 i'm asking why do you continue to exist2:38:48 well no but here's here's the point that2:38:49 i'm confused about so2:38:52 it seems like you said two different2:38:54 things right and that's why i introduced2:38:56 this third option2:38:57 on the one hand it seemed like you were2:38:58 trying to say well there isn't there is2:39:00 no such thing as the conjunction of2:39:03 everything of all the parts you know2:39:04 they they are explained by the2:39:06 individual uh members right but then on2:39:09 the other hand when you when i'm asking2:39:11 for your view and you bring this point2:39:12 up i said well it seems like you're2:39:14 affirming the strong psr and everything2:39:16 is explained but then you say well wait2:39:17 let me think about that more no actually2:39:20 the thing2:39:21 which is a totality is unexplained over2:39:22 and against others so yes it seemed like2:39:25 you slid back and forth kind of i think2:39:26 that's fair enough i think that um i may2:39:28 have been2:39:30 uh that's why i guess i'm saying which2:39:31 one are you really going with at this2:39:33 point just so i can understand what the2:39:34 theory is because they're two different2:39:36 theories right2:39:38 yeah okay so i think so what i was doing2:39:40 in the first place was like playing the2:39:41 game of like what do i think like what's2:39:43 going on what's the analysis of fruitful2:39:44 analysis2:39:46 so you see this happened2:39:48 i in real time folks and you guys you2:39:51 know i don't want to pat myself on the2:39:53 back but you guys got to pay attention2:39:56 when you're in these type of2:39:57 conversations you have to really focus2:40:00 and listen to what people are saying2:40:02 what i did was i recapped everything2:40:05 that he had said2:40:06 pointed out why there were contradictory2:40:09 statements or statements and positions2:40:12 in which2:40:13 what he said conflicted with his other2:40:16 statement2:40:17 and then listen to what he said2:40:20 he said okay you're right jake that's2:40:22 fair enough2:40:24 because i said i said it seems like2:40:25 you're sliding back and forth between2:40:27 two contradictive reviews that both2:40:29 can't be correct because they're opposed2:40:31 to one another so well yeah i guess2:40:33 that's fair enough and then he admits2:40:35 well yeah it's just because i was2:40:37 playing the game2:40:38 you see2:40:39 and then he goes on now he has to revise2:40:42 and say something different because we2:40:45 got rid of the game so to speak you see2:40:48 so2:40:49 this this is the things that i i think2:40:52 were left out of the video that needed2:40:55 to be included so i'm gonna have to talk2:40:57 to the emir after this and2:41:00 sit him down but seriously though2:41:02 because this was a development that was2:41:05 important into leading up to how we got2:41:08 there it never would have happened if i2:41:10 didn't press on this2:41:12 carry on2:41:15 yeah2:41:16 this is the argument now secondly you're2:41:18 saying to me what do you actually think2:41:19 so i think it's slightly different2:41:20 questions and it's reasonable to ask my2:41:21 second question and i think now now i'm2:41:23 focusing on that second question rather2:41:24 than the first one it's reasonable2:41:25 because it's bringing out something that2:41:27 i hadn't really2:41:28 uh spent enough time explaining first2:41:30 time absolutely um uh so2:41:32 so the first time around i was saying2:41:33 well look i i dispute the requirement2:41:35 for this like additional explanation or2:41:37 something but i think it's fair enough2:41:38 if i'm picking a view to be honest about2:41:39 like yeah i guess what happens is um2:41:42 on that view i was explaining you do2:41:43 just have to say that we're just not2:41:45 endorsing the requirement for an overall2:41:46 explanation but uh2:41:50 there you go so listen to what he said2:41:52 he said look if i'm going to take the2:41:54 view i should be honest to now admit2:41:57 that on that theory the whole is2:42:00 actually not being explained2:42:01 now that see that's in it that is a2:42:04 serious concession because prior to that2:42:07 he was using the human objection in2:42:10 which the whole was not explained2:42:12 and saying that that is a sufficient2:42:14 response to the contingency argument now2:42:17 we said okay well what are you really2:42:19 holding and there seemed to be a2:42:20 conflict between them well now he's2:42:22 saying well yeah if for honesty sake not2:42:25 to say he's being dishonest before but2:42:27 for honesty sake i have to admit now on2:42:30 that position if you hold it the whole2:42:32 is ultimately left unexplained and so2:42:35 now the psr is being violated because2:42:37 you have the whole set of contingent2:42:39 reality which is being left unexplained2:42:42 and he said for honesty sake i have to2:42:44 admit that now but i'm saying2:42:46 and again i'm not saying that alex was2:42:47 dishonest don't get me wrong but what i2:42:50 am saying if i had not come in at that2:42:53 point and pressed on it to try to get2:42:55 down to these answers that would have2:42:57 never come out he would have stayed with2:42:59 that position and assuming the audience2:43:01 would have watched and said okay well2:43:03 they didn't rebut the human objection2:43:05 now we've rebutted it and he has to2:43:07 admit at the fundamental layer you're2:43:10 left with the contingent fact which is2:43:12 totally left unexplained2:43:14 the strongest the reason why i2:43:16 reject the strongest possible psr is2:43:18 because if you include that requirement2:43:20 to explain all of all of contingent2:43:22 reality absolutely everything2:43:24 with an intelligent relation then the2:43:27 vanning worker argument shows you that2:43:28 the thing doing explaining has to be2:43:30 necessary because the thing being2:43:31 explained is all of contingent reality2:43:33 that anything left is necessary and if2:43:36 the necessity if the explanation2:43:37 relation is a necessitation relation2:43:39 then it follows logically that um2:43:43 that there is no contingent reality at2:43:44 all because the logical consequences of2:43:46 necessary truths are themselves2:43:47 necessary there's no contingent logical2:43:49 consequence of a necessary truth and so2:43:51 that is a2:43:52 most strong version of modal collapse2:43:54 that you get and now the way out of that2:43:56 is to suppose that there's some2:43:57 contingent uh thing that's not explained2:43:59 by the psr the very strongest psr or2:44:01 that everything is necessary or that the2:44:03 strongest version of the psr is false um2:44:05 and i just don't see that you can chart2:44:07 a course between those so did you follow2:44:10 that change listening yeah but yeah yeah2:44:12 i do but so now what i'm saying is now2:44:14 we're back to the two options instead of2:44:16 this other third option in which2:44:18 everything everything is contingent and2:44:20 everything is explained2:44:21 now we're back to well there's something2:44:23 that's fundamentally contingent that2:44:24 isn't explained or everything is2:44:26 necessary that's kind of where we're at2:44:27 now that's so um but then i go back to2:44:30 my original question what sort2:44:33 well so yeah you see yeah see how i2:44:35 broke it down in real time because2:44:38 before he was proposing a third option2:44:40 in which2:44:42 he accepts a strong psr2:44:44 all contingent things are explained2:44:47 now because i've pushed him on this2:44:50 no he's eliminating that thing which he2:44:53 had been defending the whole time as the2:44:55 option and now he's left with two2:44:57 options either everything is necessary2:45:01 or2:45:02 everything is contingent and there is a2:45:05 contingency which is unexplained which2:45:08 is the conjunction of all contingent2:45:10 facts and now he's taking that as his2:45:13 position and saying yeah at the ultimate2:45:15 level we're left with something2:45:17 unexplained where before he was2:45:19 defending a third position which has now2:45:21 been removed2:45:23 you see2:45:24 that is extremely significant because he2:45:27 was defending that third option which2:45:29 now he has abandoned in the course of2:45:31 five ten minutes2:45:34 you see you see what i'm saying like2:45:36 this is a big deal in the conversation2:45:38 here because he had to pivot to move to2:45:41 a different point but if i had never2:45:43 done this we would have never got to oh2:45:45 wait alex you were defending another2:45:47 view before now you're saying that one2:45:49 is no good by the way and now there are2:45:51 these two other views and i'm picking a2:45:53 new one out of those2:45:55 see2:45:56 yeah yeah so go on keep playing it2:45:59 so2:46:00 what i find the the exact same thing2:46:03 that i'm saying right now is what i said2:46:06 at the time when the video is taking2:46:08 place you see well anyway here we go2:46:11 sort of explanatory principle are you2:46:14 dealing with because if you're at that2:46:15 point if you're not accepting because2:46:16 you're saying well if i have those two2:46:18 options2:46:19 the one of everything being necessary2:46:20 just seems more absurd than the other2:46:23 option yeah so it seems like you're2:46:24 leaning more towards that one which then2:46:26 would entail a rejection of the strong2:46:28 psr which then goes back to my original2:46:30 question what explanatory principle2:46:31 would you be operating with2:46:33 well i mean if you have to have2:46:34 something that's contingent that's not2:46:36 explained in that strong2:46:37 necessitation way um the view i was2:46:40 advocating a moment ago which is a2:46:41 beginningless chain at least has the2:46:42 virtue that every individual thing is2:46:44 explained um if you have something2:46:45 that's not explained it's really just i2:46:47 mean like i said i can get off you2:46:49 something there's a2:46:51 commiseration you can't have a proper2:46:53 explanation of the whole contingency or2:46:54 what you can have is the conjunction of2:46:55 all of the contingent things so in a way2:46:57 you don't explain everything it's not2:46:58 like something's popping into a distance2:46:59 out of nothing right some fruit2:47:01 contingency that just starts a new chain2:47:02 or something which arguably is what2:47:03 happens on the libertarian view anyway2:47:05 um so at least i'm saying everything has2:47:06 a kind of proper strong explanation if2:47:08 you want that if you like that type of2:47:09 thing here's a view for you right it's2:47:11 just uh the way you escape the mobile2:47:12 collapses i have the whole of contingent2:47:13 reality the whole sequence doesn't2:47:15 itself have a necessitating explanation2:47:17 you know if it did then actually you'd2:47:18 have no class again so you have to2:47:20 something has to give to avoid mobile2:47:21 collapse uh you can embrace a weakened2:47:23 assassination relation so not the strong2:47:25 psr or you can say something contingent2:47:27 exists it's not explained by that you2:47:29 could pick a specific contingent2:47:30 proposition and just say that's not2:47:31 explained but it explains everything2:47:32 else or you could do the thing that i've2:47:33 said images no individual continued2:47:35 proposition is unexplained but the2:47:37 entire chain is in a sense unexplained2:47:39 but i give you i'll give you an offering2:47:41 on that view which is that conjunction2:47:42 of all of the individual explanations it2:47:43 seems to me it's a pretty good deal2:47:44 gives you that better answer2:47:47 yeah but2:47:48 so now listen what he's saying he's2:47:50 giving an offering and he's he's being2:47:52 very he's being quite modest and the2:47:54 reason is because now i said okay now2:47:57 we're back to square one if you're2:47:59 taking2:48:00 are you actually since we eliminated2:48:02 that other view which you were holding2:48:03 to before are you taking the view now in2:48:07 which every contingent thing2:48:09 individually is explained by some other2:48:11 contingent thing but the whole of2:48:13 contingent reality is left unexplained2:48:15 well if you're taking that view then now2:48:18 no longer are you defending a strong psr2:48:22 because it's not consistent with your2:48:24 current view so i pointed that out and i2:48:26 said well if that's the case then what2:48:28 is your explanatory principle that2:48:30 you're working with now because that2:48:32 would then have to be the position he's2:48:34 holding to now would have to be a2:48:35 rejection of the strong psr you see and2:48:38 then that's why now he's explaining okay2:48:41 well here's what my view is it's an2:48:44 offering yes i have to admit i can't2:48:46 explain everything on this view but i'm2:48:47 explaining mostly everything except for2:48:49 the whole of contingent reality2:48:52 i'm just explaining to the audience how2:48:54 the2:48:55 back and forth is working2:48:58 but then it seems that there are two2:48:59 things uh that i don't think the theory2:49:01 really deals with i mean the old famous2:49:03 question of why is there something2:49:04 rather than nothing it doesn't explain2:49:06 why things exist rather than nothing at2:49:08 all and it also doesn't explain why the2:49:10 actual world rather than another2:49:12 possible world so those two questions2:49:14 seem to need to be left unanswered2:49:16 uh okay but then i mean let's let's do a2:49:19 comparison then i mean because you know2:49:21 no view is completely invulnerable to2:49:22 any problem but the real thing is what2:49:24 do you do i'm just doing an analysis2:49:25 that's all i'm just trying to say what2:49:27 are we left with on each uh theory and2:49:29 view that's all i get so so but what i'm2:49:31 saying is uh those considerations so2:49:33 again he's saying no view is uh2:49:37 not vulnerable to any sort of critique2:49:39 or whatsoever because now he's admitting2:49:41 okay i couldn't defend that view anymore2:49:43 so and here's what i'm defending now and2:49:45 yeah it is left with a problem2:49:47 ultimately the strong psr is not being2:49:50 fulfilled not even i would argue not2:49:52 even a modified version of the strong2:49:55 psr2:49:56 because you have this all of contingent2:49:58 reality as a whole is being left totally2:50:01 unexplained there's not even a partial2:50:02 explanation for the totality of2:50:04 contingent reality and that's when i2:50:07 bring up the point well why this2:50:08 totality of contingent reality instead2:50:11 of another possible world with a2:50:14 different set of uh contingent reality2:50:18 and that he goes into at this point now2:50:20 trying to critique our view because he2:50:23 tries to go on the front foot now all of2:50:26 a sudden and critique our view and say2:50:29 now okay but now we're kind of even and2:50:32 yours doesn't have some greater uh2:50:35 explanatory power or simplicity than2:50:38 mine that's basically where he tries to2:50:39 go now considerations are better2:50:41 explained on your theory than mine for2:50:43 instance and if they're equal on both2:50:44 theories and they don't help us tell2:50:45 between the theories right like you know2:50:47 arguably no theory explains away2:50:50 solipsism completely but that doesn't2:50:51 you know solve systems no doesn't help2:50:53 tell which theory is true right because2:50:55 it affects every theory the same way so2:50:56 it's just a problem for everybody so if2:50:58 this was a problem for both of us then2:50:59 you know so what right if it's problem2:51:01 for me but not a problem for you then2:51:02 good it helps you and it hurts me so2:51:03 let's see if it's one of those right2:51:04 here everyone is just a problem for me2:51:06 so i mean uh you're saying that on this2:51:08 view where2:51:10 there's an infinite sequence of2:51:11 contingent things it doesn't explain why2:51:12 there's something rather than nothing2:51:13 what's the explanation why there's2:51:14 something rather nothing on your view2:51:16 because there's a necessary being that2:51:17 exists in all possible worlds could he2:51:18 have not made anything at all2:51:20 but he would always still be something2:51:21 so there would be something that always2:51:22 exists2:51:25 i think god is necessary so i'm saying2:51:27 assuming that we go with the option that2:51:28 there's something that's necessary um so2:51:30 god is necessary and exists in all2:51:31 possible worlds that would explain why2:51:33 there's something rather than nothing at2:51:34 all and then also uh the second point of2:51:37 why there's the actual world over2:51:38 another possible world is explained by2:51:40 god's action which i know we went2:51:42 through the whole thing about2:51:43 libertarian free will and all that those2:51:45 issues but i still think um that theory2:51:47 overall has more explanatory power and2:51:49 strength than the view that doesn't2:51:50 explain why there's something at all2:51:52 rather than nothing and also doesn't2:51:53 really do anything to help understand or2:51:55 explain why the actual world over2:51:57 another possible world2:51:58 okay so on your view the reason so i'm2:52:01 not sure if this helps you in any way2:52:02 but so unless you think that because2:52:05 i think necessary troops don't have any2:52:06 explanation right like why is one plus2:52:08 one equals two there's there's actually2:52:09 not in the terms we've talked about2:52:10 again where like you state the prior2:52:12 condition that necessitates that thing2:52:13 coming back like why did i have coffee2:52:14 rather than t or why did this uh ball2:52:16 roll down the hill or something like2:52:17 what we're doing when we give that type2:52:18 of explanation is we're stating prior2:52:20 conditions that necessitate the thing2:52:22 we're trying to explain right but if i2:52:24 talk about a necessary truth then2:52:25 because they're independent of any2:52:26 conditions obtaining that you can't give2:52:27 a condition that necessitates it but2:52:29 it's necessary even if i think didn't2:52:30 happen for everything right now maybe2:52:32 there's a concrete thing that exists2:52:33 necessarily i don't think so it's your2:52:34 hypothesis so let's let's run it it's2:52:35 what happens um2:52:37 if necessary troops don't have any2:52:38 explanations then nothing explains why2:52:40 that thing exists and you were telling2:52:42 me that this is a part of your theory2:52:43 you're better than mine specifically on2:52:44 the question of why something exists2:52:46 rather than nothing but your answer is2:52:47 because a necessary being exists doesn't2:52:48 have any explanation so how is that2:52:50 better than me saying well i can't2:52:51 continue things happen and you know i2:52:53 offered you some kind of explanation you2:52:54 didn't like it but i mean your your2:52:56 alternative is just to postulate some2:52:57 necessary treatment by definition2:52:58 doesn't have any explanation at all2:53:00 let's see how that does better you know2:53:01 the question why is there something2:53:02 other than nothing because a thing2:53:03 exists for which there's no information2:53:04 why it exists that's not a good2:53:05 information there's no information at2:53:06 all right so that's why organization2:53:08 works it's not an explanation depositing2:53:10 a necessary being even if it's true that2:53:11 it exists nothing explains why that2:53:12 exists so therefore nothing explains2:53:14 ultimately why there's something rather2:53:15 than nothing does that make sense2:53:17 um yeah i understand what you're saying2:53:19 and i think2:53:20 so at this point he's saying well look2:53:22 you have a necessary being which there's2:53:25 no explanation for the necessary being2:53:27 and i have this contingent set of all2:53:29 reality which there's no explanation so2:53:32 somehow they're on par2:53:33 well no they're not on par to say that2:53:36 you have a brute contingency and that i2:53:38 have2:53:39 a brute necessity and say that they're2:53:42 on par well no it's not because the type2:53:45 of thing that is necessary doesn't call2:53:48 for an explanation outside of itself you2:53:50 don't seek to go and find why one plus2:53:52 one equals two but you do seek to find2:53:55 out why the grass is green or the sky is2:53:57 blue or clouds are generally white2:54:00 so2:54:01 it's not on par and abdul brings this up2:54:03 later on to say that positing a brute2:54:07 contingency and something that is2:54:09 necessary to say that they're on par2:54:11 is not correct2:54:13 yeah i think jake also i think he he2:54:16 sort of takes what you said2:54:19 sort of literally when he said uh why is2:54:22 there something as opposed to nothing2:54:23 and then he's taking that2:54:25 to the to the literal sense to say well2:54:28 okay saying that there's a nest saying2:54:30 that something has to exist2:54:33 is doesn't have an explanation as to why2:54:36 something exists as opposed to2:54:38 uh it doesn't exist do you see what i2:54:40 mean2:54:43 yeah yeah2:54:44 he's he's got very but he's but what2:54:47 you're trying to say2:54:48 is2:54:49 why does something exist as opposed to2:54:52 nothing i can nothing exists2:54:56 can there be a a no thing yeah and then2:54:58 that's when now we're gonna pivot to2:55:00 where he admits that no2:55:02 that can't be the case yeah nothing2:55:04 exists so that so yeah so so just2:55:08 i just want to say that the whole why is2:55:10 there something rather nothing i'm sure2:55:12 if you're right because2:55:13 it's basically asking why contingent2:55:16 things exist2:55:17 really i mean if if you if you take into2:55:19 consideration what we already agreed on2:55:22 with alex that well necessary2:55:24 things2:55:25 or propositions they don't have2:55:27 explanations2:55:28 and kind of emphasize a few times that2:55:30 they don't what we think is that they2:55:32 don't have explanations in the sense2:55:33 that they don't need explanations which2:55:35 would be in a way that's sort of2:55:37 analogous to like analytic truths2:55:39 although2:55:40 obviously you're not going to yeah2:55:42 the same way2:55:47 that something necessary exists and2:55:49 there's no explanation of that necessary2:55:51 thing outside of itself and a brute2:55:54 contingency like the grass is green as2:55:56 you mentioned they're not the same thing2:55:59 how are they on par yeah so if you put2:56:01 it in terms of propositions right so put2:56:02 in terms of propositions and ask the2:56:04 same question well why2:56:06 are these propositions true rather than2:56:08 not true or whatever however you want to2:56:09 put it well clearly you're not going to2:56:11 be asking this question about like why2:56:15 is a equals a2:56:16 w2:56:17 or why one plus one equals two you're2:56:19 you're not really asking that about2:56:21 those2:56:22 you're asking about the contingent2:56:24 propositions like why the grass is green2:56:25 and why sky is blue and all that other2:56:28 stuff but then the the the whole thing2:56:30 is the idea here is that well2:56:33 can there be something concrete that's2:56:36 in a in an analogous way to like the the2:56:39 the these analytic truths2:56:42 uh not in need of an explanation can we2:56:45 provide any account2:56:47 you know intuitive or otherwise about2:56:50 what qualifies this concrete necessity2:56:53 to be2:56:54 similar in that sense like however we2:56:56 can explain it2:56:58 that it does not need an explanation and2:56:59 even proof mentions this proof2:57:01 i mentioned it to to alex that bruce in2:57:04 one of his papers he mentions that while2:57:05 the necessary being must have an2:57:07 ontological account for its existence2:57:09 even if we are not up for providing it2:57:12 i mean obviously he has much more to say2:57:14 about that but the point is that while2:57:15 there must be some distinguishing factor2:57:17 i think that's more reasonable to say2:57:19 then there's nothing at all2:57:21 so and just one final point and jake i2:57:23 don't know if you want to touch upon2:57:24 this jake and jerry well2:57:26 there does seem to be like james2:57:28 anderson's argument and alex is very2:57:30 familiar with and yet he responded to it2:57:32 and he had a discussion with him2:57:35 does seem to show that if we accept2:57:37 certain premises in that argument about2:57:39 the nature of propositions uh you know2:57:41 and mental states and stuff like that2:57:43 and their intentionality then well then2:57:45 it does seem to be reasonable to posit2:57:48 some kind of mind that doesn't require2:57:51 an explanation it's the grounding of2:57:53 necessary truth so it it would almost2:57:54 like if that argument works of course2:57:56 it'll be like one plus one equals true2:57:58 being a necessary truth2:58:00 kind of like just it just entails that2:58:03 that it's grounded in that and then you2:58:05 wouldn't need an explanation i mean well2:58:07 if it's always true and you don't need2:58:09 an external explanation for why one plus2:58:11 one equals two well then whatever2:58:13 grounds it it it'll be the same thing2:58:15 and if it's a mind then we can say that2:58:18 about it yeah well that's why right now2:58:20 once i play the video at this point2:58:22 any he thinks oh he makes a comment like2:58:25 oh are you running or something i pivot2:58:28 back to the discussion which you just2:58:30 meant about mentioned about necessary2:58:32 abstract objects to try to further this2:58:35 line that i'm going through at the2:58:37 moment uh instead of trying to get into2:58:40 the nitty-gritty going back and forth2:58:43 about a con fundamental contingency that2:58:46 is brute and unexplained versus2:58:48 something necessary that doesn't require2:58:50 an explanation outside of itself and so2:58:53 that's why at that point i'd pivot back2:58:55 to the where i wanted to go so i think2:58:58 there's two things and the first thing2:58:59 is that when you said why is there2:59:01 something as opposed to nothing2:59:03 what you were basically saying2:59:05 or one way of understanding that that2:59:07 question is wiser contingent things2:59:11 as opposed to non-contingent things is2:59:12 that one way of understanding it2:59:15 yeah yeah and then another way i mean2:59:17 that that's that's what it like kind of2:59:19 adds up to at the end of the day yeah2:59:21 yeah and the second thing would be is to2:59:23 say well can you have nothing2:59:25 why is there something well you can't2:59:28 have nothing so there must be something2:59:30 you can't have a philosophical nothing2:59:33 now what what accounts for2:59:35 a something then if you can't have you2:59:39 know it wouldn't be a contingent reality2:59:41 it would be a necessary reality you'd2:59:43 have to posit at least a necessary2:59:45 reality in order to explain why you've2:59:48 got these2:59:50 uh contingent realities because he's not2:59:52 alex is not going to accept modal2:59:54 collapse now so it it seems like when2:59:58 alex started to bring up his contentions3:00:00 to you jake this moment he seemed like3:00:02 he was just being3:00:04 semantical and hyper literal on the well3:00:08 i think at3:00:10 this exchange let me go i think at this3:00:13 point in the exchange3:00:15 he was bringing up a point and that's3:00:17 why i kind of3:00:18 sidestepped it and went back because i3:00:20 wanted to go back to the main point yeah3:00:22 i think it was it was trying to you know3:00:25 bring up a side point here3:00:27 uh i kind of want to go on to a3:00:29 different topic3:00:31 no no because i think it's related to3:00:33 what i want to say because i think you3:00:34 do believe in necessary things that3:00:37 you see he said oh why are you trying to3:00:39 run away no i'm trying to get back to3:00:40 the main point that i think alex was3:00:43 trying to sidestep3:00:45 exist in all possible worlds um based on3:00:49 your conversation with um james anderson3:00:51 and your understanding of platonism3:00:55 yes right so those are abstract things3:00:57 so do you think it's it's possible for3:00:59 those abstract things to exist apart3:01:01 from um the actual world or any other3:01:04 concrete existence3:01:06 i think yeah the existence of abstract3:01:07 things is independent of the existence3:01:08 of any concrete things3:01:10 so i don't know if you guys are there oh3:01:12 there sharif notice how he answers my3:01:15 question first3:01:17 uh let me just play back the last 103:01:19 seconds in fact things to yes right so3:01:22 those are abstract things so do you3:01:24 think it's it's possible for those3:01:25 abstract things to exist apart from um3:01:29 the actual world or any other concrete3:01:30 existence3:01:32 i think yeah existence of amsterdam3:01:33 things is independent of the existence3:01:34 of any congregants3:01:37 so notice what he said he first answers3:01:40 the question with yes3:01:41 i think the existence of abstract things3:01:44 can exist appen3:01:46 independently of any concrete things3:01:49 meaning to say that there could be a3:01:51 possible world in which no concrete3:01:53 objects exist and only abstract objects3:01:56 exist but i knew that he couldn't hold3:01:58 that position3:02:00 based on the aristotelianism that he3:02:03 already had committed to in the3:02:04 conversation so now i'm pointing out a3:02:07 contradiction between his previously3:02:09 held platonist position and3:02:13 and hence what he's answering here and3:02:15 what he's representing in the3:02:17 conversation with the aristotelian3:02:19 position so now i re-ask the question a3:02:21 second time because i'm saying well hold3:02:23 on a second those things both can't go3:02:25 together so now this is what he answers3:02:28 it differently3:02:29 right so then in that case um there's a3:02:32 possible world in which only abstract3:02:33 necessary things exist and no concrete3:02:37 um nothing concrete exists3:02:39 yeah okay sure3:02:40 i mean3:02:41 so again i ask again in a different way3:02:44 so there's a possible world in which3:02:46 necessary abstract objects exist but no3:02:49 concrete objects exist and he says yeah3:02:51 a second time but then it seems like now3:02:54 he's gonna3:02:55 reverse course3:03:01 so there you go again i'm playing the3:03:03 game a bit you're playing a game of3:03:05 eight mate see i i know the game3:03:07 and that's why what do i do i don't3:03:10 settle i go back and mention it again is3:03:13 this a dumpster yeah3:03:15 on an aristotelian view where there's no3:03:17 beginning to time3:03:18 every possible world overlaps with the3:03:19 actual world so3:03:21 i mean unless the actual world at no3:03:23 point contains any concrete things then3:03:25 um there isn't a possible world where at3:03:27 no point is there a concrete like if3:03:28 there's some concrete thing at some3:03:29 point in the actual world then it's not3:03:31 possible because there's an entirely3:03:32 empty world no concrete things but ah so3:03:35 so that's the yeah so then that's my3:03:36 point is then that means that something3:03:38 concrete is necessary3:03:41 um3:03:42 so here so here's my here's what i said3:03:45 so then now the third time when he's3:03:48 answering a question first time he said3:03:50 no twice because of the platonism his3:03:53 platonus view now because he's3:03:55 representing an aristotelian view in3:03:57 which abstract objects like one plus one3:04:00 equaling two don't exist as like a3:04:02 floating abstract thing out in space or3:04:05 something3:04:06 he's not representing platonism he's3:04:08 representing aristotelianism in which3:04:11 those abstract things can only exist if3:04:15 they are exemplified in a particular3:04:18 concrete object and then the mind is3:04:21 what abstracts it from those concrete3:04:24 particulars so now the third time around3:04:26 he has to say well no actually on an3:04:29 aristotelian view which by the way i've3:04:31 been representing in this whole3:04:33 conversation i can't actually say that i3:04:36 have to say that no there is no possible3:04:39 world in which no concrete objects exist3:04:42 and so now i say well then that means3:04:44 you're committed to concrete existence3:04:47 and then he's thinking about it3:04:50 i mean3:04:51 jake can you can you just remove the3:04:54 live chat3:04:56 remove the live chat on the video3:04:58 playing3:04:59 if you can3:05:00 i don't know how3:05:02 i have no idea how yeah never mind then3:05:05 yeah3:05:07 i don't have to hope that there is but3:05:08 um yeah i think that's right on the3:05:09 outside that's right that there's there3:05:10 couldn't be an empty world unless the3:05:11 actual world doesn't empty well3:05:13 right but then if that's the case then3:05:15 now you have something necessary that's3:05:16 concrete3:05:30 it doesn't mean there is one concrete3:05:32 thing that's necessary it's not not3:05:33 individual3:05:35 yeah but the genus i'm saying3:05:37 so when we're talking or something by3:05:38 the genus3:05:39 meaning the type yeah the category of3:05:41 concrete3:05:43 some of the category of something being3:05:44 concrete that's necessary3:05:46 yeah so i'm not saying that therefore3:05:47 you're forced into oh a particular3:05:49 molecule or a pen yeah yeah yeah yeah3:05:50 yeah3:05:51 i'm not saying that i'm not saying that3:05:52 but3:05:53 the the3:05:54 category of concrete existence would3:05:56 then be necessary3:05:58 yeah okay and that's compatible with me3:05:59 saying every concrete thing continually3:06:00 exists yeah3:06:02 right but now3:06:04 to me it seems like you're getting a bit3:06:05 closer to the view that we're trying to3:06:07 represent3:06:10 maybe a little bit i'm not sure that3:06:12 it's significantly closer because um3:06:16 so that that i think it will do it for3:06:19 uh unless you guys wanted to add3:06:21 anything i think that'll do it for3:06:23 sharing on on the video but now we see3:06:25 how i got to that point where now he's3:06:28 saying3:06:29 that and now this is the relevant3:06:31 difference that the category or the3:06:34 class3:06:35 the set of concrete existence3:06:38 is necessary on his view3:06:41 our view is no3:06:43 all concrete objects3:06:46 are besides god3:06:48 are contingent so he has this the the3:06:52 class or the genus3:06:54 of concrete existence is necessary which3:06:57 means to say that in any possible world3:07:00 something concrete must exist3:07:02 we say no you need to go further the3:07:04 problem is you have a set or type of of3:07:08 which is concrete which is necessary we3:07:11 say no there's a particular being that3:07:14 is concrete which is necessary and hence3:07:17 why i said well now you're getting3:07:19 closer to our view because before you3:07:21 are radically representing this human3:07:24 view in which everything is contingent3:07:26 and each thing is explained by this and3:07:28 then we saw the problems with that and3:07:30 went boom boom boom developing all the3:07:32 way down up until this point but then3:07:35 the fallout of this3:07:37 is and i don't know what alex's position3:07:39 is going to be because due to his prior3:07:42 commitment or leaning towards causal3:07:44 finitism if concrete existence is3:07:47 necessary and eternal meaning that it3:07:49 always exists3:07:50 and the definition of something concrete3:07:52 is that it stands in causal relations3:07:55 how is he going to navigate that with3:07:57 causal finitism and put those two views3:08:00 together now i don't think we did a good3:08:02 enough job of putting that forward after3:08:05 this point in the conversation but i3:08:07 think that is an open question left for3:08:09 alex at this point yeah i know i was3:08:11 just thinking exactly the same thing at3:08:13 that point because3:08:15 if he's saying that each individual3:08:17 particular is contingent but the class3:08:21 is going to be necessary meaning there3:08:23 always has to be something that's3:08:26 exists there's always a contingent thing3:08:28 that has to exist3:08:30 then3:08:31 a contingent concrete thing yeah then3:08:34 he's basically falling into some sort of3:08:36 causal finitism also yeah infinite3:08:39 regress yeah yeah causal infinitism yeah3:08:42 yeah3:08:43 there's also a point an important point3:08:45 because jake you mentioned that he's3:08:47 coming closer to our position i think3:08:50 it's also like uh it's also very close3:08:53 to one of the interpretations of the3:08:55 taemian views ibn taymiyah's views about3:08:57 the you know the necessity of the genus3:09:00 of like material things right uh which3:09:04 which it's in a way similar is similar3:09:06 it's not exact but then you have that3:09:09 necessary category where no individual3:09:12 thing is necessity is is actually like3:09:15 morally necessary and then you have god3:09:19 as an explanation3:09:21 that accounts for like3:09:22 all of it but it's just necessitated by3:09:24 god's nature so i mean i think even like3:09:26 on that view like um3:09:28 still like the the that could still be3:09:31 very close to3:09:33 a theistic picture3:09:34 um obviously all uncertain there's more3:09:37 needed but i'm just saying that taymian3:09:39 account or certain interpretation of it3:09:42 looks very similar to what's being3:09:43 described here3:09:45 okay so the final3:09:47 uh3:09:48 sort of the final question-ish3:09:51 is that he3:09:52 actually there's a bit at the end isn't3:09:54 it did he3:09:55 we probably need to play it because3:09:58 he sort of says that we're on equal3:10:00 grounds didn't he at the end3:10:04 is that right3:10:05 oh yeah so he says you have two theories3:10:08 here and and he says that well that i3:10:10 haven't i have uh3:10:12 something i don't think i know jake's3:10:14 gone off camera but i don't know if jake3:10:15 can is it right at the end right at the3:10:18 end of the video3:10:19 it's kind of right after this yeah but3:10:21 that's basically the gist of what he3:10:23 said he says you got you got two3:10:24 theories3:10:25 or we we've we3:10:27 got a necessary thing or necessary3:10:30 category and contingent things and3:10:32 my theory assumes less so my theory is3:10:35 simpler3:10:36 uh yeah but then at the very end he3:10:39 actually says well it's a tie it's it's3:10:41 high yeah that's what yeah yeah yeah3:10:43 which is yeah i expect it to be a win if3:10:46 it's3:10:47 you know significantly simpler in the3:10:49 sense that it will it's it's i know but3:10:51 that's what i'm saying abdul but that3:10:52 was 20 minutes later so so he went from3:10:55 thence at that point saying okay well3:10:57 here's where i'm at now we're about even3:11:00 but my theory stim simpler so it's3:11:02 better but then his final statement was3:11:05 okay we're at a tie3:11:07 which means if you're if your theory was3:11:09 to be preferred because it's simpler3:11:11 well now you're not really saying that3:11:13 anymore you're saying it's a tie and3:11:15 yeah3:11:16 i think this is a yeah3:11:19 i i think that can't be the case because3:11:22 you obviously prefer your position over3:11:25 hours and so therefore there's a3:11:27 conflict with you even saying that it's3:11:29 a tie3:11:30 and3:11:31 also3:11:33 and i'm just going to say this i think3:11:36 that alex in the discussion especially3:11:39 towards that latter part that we were3:11:41 playing and a little before when abdul3:11:43 was talking to him and a little after3:11:45 when abdul was talking to him again3:11:47 i think in that part there3:11:50 um3:11:52 i think he was3:11:54 a bit surprised in that3:11:57 because i wouldn't back down and i was3:12:00 trying to really force him to commit to3:12:01 make statements and i don't think he's3:12:04 generally used to that i think he said3:12:07 some things that he normally wouldn't3:12:09 have said because i haven't seen either3:12:12 in his writing or in other places him3:12:14 make similar statements it was almost as3:12:17 if he was kind of3:12:18 um forced to take positions and in light3:12:21 of that3:12:22 it caused problems based on what he had3:12:24 said earlier in the conversation and so3:12:26 at this point3:12:28 i think you would radically have to3:12:29 revise what he said earlier and i mean3:12:32 we've talked about it before where he3:12:35 could go from here3:12:36 um3:12:37 maybe abdul and sharif you guys can say3:12:39 a little bit more about that but i think3:12:42 that as he stands now3:12:44 there is a tension between the various3:12:47 positions that he holds3:12:48 he's gonna have to try to3:12:51 make it work some way for internal3:12:53 consistency3:12:54 and it's just a matter of what's gonna3:12:57 give at that point3:12:59 yeah i mean i think you should take like3:13:00 the you take like the opium uh like you3:13:02 know3:13:03 model of the the way he deals with with3:13:05 these with these questions and he he3:13:07 commits to that kind of position but3:13:08 then um so i think the whole the whole3:13:10 idea of like simplicity and then whether3:13:12 it's being a tie or not so that assumes3:13:14 a lot of stuff of course so it assumes3:13:16 this the idea we spoke about earlier3:13:18 about like explanations and like just3:13:20 necessary things simply not having3:13:22 explanations and like you know nothing3:13:24 further can be said about the necessary3:13:26 thing versus you know the nuance i was3:13:28 trying to adding to add to it3:13:30 you know by saying that well just3:13:32 that's something necessary it doesn't3:13:34 need an explanation and you know there's3:13:36 there's3:13:37 sort of like possible epistemic access3:13:40 to which he agreed with the obviousness3:13:42 yeah exactly yeah he also agreed to the3:13:44 intuition by the way when i mentioned3:13:46 the whole limitless thing right or or3:13:48 lack of arbitrary limitation that even3:13:50 even amongst some scientists where they3:13:52 propose like models for like ultimate3:13:54 reality and theories for ultimate3:13:56 reality they they would prefer a lack of3:13:59 of you know arbitrary limitations and3:14:01 stuff like that and so he acknowledges3:14:03 the intuition generally but then he says3:14:05 it's a flaky intuition now i mean3:14:09 whether you3:14:10 can you challenged it yeah i mean so you3:14:12 can have3:14:13 what i was saying is that we will at any3:14:15 point in this like series of different3:14:18 positions we leap from like even if we3:14:19 start like that like a soul of cysts can3:14:21 say well you have a flaky intuition3:14:23 about reality and someone who's like a3:14:26 you know within a certain skeptical3:14:27 scenario about causality in the external3:14:29 world can3:14:31 we we can always say there are flaky3:14:32 intuitions3:14:33 clearly some are3:14:35 obviously more flaky than others but the3:14:38 fact that3:14:39 limited things uh like uh things that3:14:42 are arbitrary limited require3:14:44 explanation seems something that's very3:14:45 obvious from at least an epistemic3:14:47 perspective which is the path i was3:14:48 trying to take with him on the psr an3:14:51 epistemic route that just seems obvious3:14:53 so either like you know you can frame it3:14:55 in terms of this skeptical scenario and3:14:57 you require this a priori principle that3:15:00 gets you past that or just as an3:15:02 epistemic you know a assumption you make3:15:06 based on what's obvious that well you3:15:07 behave as though3:15:09 you know contingent or limited things3:15:11 have explanations obviously about3:15:13 qualifying what a contingent thing is3:15:15 and and uh i think coons takes this3:15:17 approach in his 97 paper about the3:15:20 cosmological argument and3:15:22 if you take that yeah3:15:24 so just one last thing so if you take3:15:25 that like episodic approach even like3:15:27 you as if like it's if it's a dece the3:15:29 feasible principle3:15:30 well then that that's fine because3:15:32 because you can have like a feasible3:15:35 case for for god's existence which i3:15:37 mean what's wrong with that3:15:38 i mean although we regard it as much3:15:40 stronger than that psr like you know you3:15:42 can say it's a presumption of reasons3:15:44 and a priori truth we can accept that i3:15:45 mean for those who don't i mean so it3:15:48 can be a defeasible truth and we just go3:15:49 all the way with it and the the fact the3:15:52 whole flakiness of the intuition well i3:15:54 mean the intuition is there and it's a3:15:55 means for us to be able to like3:15:58 theoretically distinguish between3:15:59 contingent things that are just root and3:16:01 have no explanation or necessary things3:16:03 that are very uh uh3:16:06 in this like seem seemingly in the same3:16:08 categories contingent things and just3:16:09 simply have no explanation we'll leave3:16:10 it at that and everything else doesn't3:16:12 seem to have a satisfying explanation3:16:15 as alex acknowledges or we can3:16:18 go with that very strong intuition that3:16:19 we share and and well on that basis well3:16:22 how does the simplicity part work3:16:23 because we're just taking the3:16:26 intuition seriously and what if we're3:16:28 just going to deny intuition altogether3:16:30 then we can just draw the line anywhere3:16:32 else in that whole process of moving3:16:34 from you know one epistemic state to3:16:36 another and3:16:38 broadening your your your uh you know3:16:40 your your uh categories of how of what3:16:43 you epistemically have access to we can3:16:46 you know make claims to a lot of3:16:48 intuitions that might seem flaky right3:16:50 uh but if we're going to add a little a3:16:52 bit of like pragmatism to the mix of3:16:54 well it seems like the3:16:56 many of these intuitions that we were3:16:58 talking about that alex does acknowledge3:17:00 are reasonable intuitions that we do3:17:01 share and on that basis i don't see how3:17:04 simplicity would win out when you would3:17:06 have a end up with a position where you3:17:08 have this contingent seemingly3:17:10 contingent thing or limited thing that3:17:13 doesn't really explain anything else3:17:16 because it is brute or it has no3:17:18 explanation in the sense that it3:17:21 seems like it needs an explanation but3:17:23 it doesn't have one similar to how grass3:17:25 is green seems to have an explanation3:17:27 versus a equals a doesn't seem to have3:17:29 one and3:17:31 and and then well that doesn't explain3:17:32 anything that comes from within it but3:17:34 then we have this direct experience of3:17:37 first of all that intuition about3:17:39 limitations second of all agency and3:17:42 free will that can explain many things3:17:44 about the situation of a contingent3:17:46 reality or a temporal reality from this3:17:49 eternal necessary cause where where3:17:53 so much of our just direct innermost3:17:56 human experience can just relate to it3:17:58 kind of also does scream out in a3:18:00 certain way that3:18:01 there seems to be an act of3:18:03 choice and selection here and and3:18:05 causelessly initiating an action3:18:07 non-deterministically so yeah i think3:18:09 there's a lot to be said yeah3:18:13 if there's a lot to be said3:18:14 will say each other yeah3:18:18 no so i think see what he sounded like3:18:22 when he sort of accepted this sort of a3:18:24 necessary existence even if he's saying3:18:26 it's a category as opposed to it he then3:18:28 tries to argue as though3:18:31 well you got posit one necessary thing3:18:34 with another necessary thing or brute3:18:36 contingency with a necessary thing and3:18:38 that they're all equal they're all you3:18:40 know this3:18:41 these options are all equal to to what3:18:43 he's trying to say so3:18:45 let's break it down he's going to say3:18:47 that in essence it sounds like you're3:18:49 trying to say on the one hand there's a3:18:51 necessary natural thing3:18:54 compared to a necessary thing with the3:18:56 mind yeah and that they're equal and3:18:59 we're saying no it's not equal because a3:19:02 necessary natural thing3:19:04 yeah would necessitate generally3:19:08 the3:19:09 the contingent world and you'd get this3:19:10 modal collapse3:19:12 yeah if you're now going to say that3:19:14 this necessary thing3:19:17 you know uh indeterminately created3:19:20 then really the only mechanism for an3:19:23 indeterminate action3:19:25 yeah uh would be the idea of a mind yeah3:19:29 would that be right abdulrahman yeah so3:19:31 now you've got yeah it seems to be a3:19:33 very good candidate yeah yeah so you3:19:35 know you're moving from necessary3:19:37 natural thing to necessary mind yeah3:19:40 yeah necessary thing with the mind so3:19:41 there's more explanatory power here that3:19:44 we haven't talked about consciousness we3:19:46 haven't talked about fixed patterns3:19:48 within nature fixed patterns within3:19:50 causality all of these types of things3:19:51 these all add extra to the explanation i3:19:54 mean i was going to add that point3:19:55 especially on like like so if there's3:19:57 any teleological like like3:19:59 considerations right with design or3:20:00 whatever and and then there's obviously3:20:02 our again our experience of like3:20:04 morality for example i mean why do3:20:05 naturalists generally genuinely as they3:20:08 acknowledge like have a hard time3:20:10 grounding any kind of moral realism even3:20:11 though there are attempts to do that but3:20:13 clearly there's more difficulty doing3:20:15 that on a like materialist or naturalist3:20:17 view than a view where these normative3:20:20 facts that seem to be like like they're3:20:22 normative they seem to be a um contained3:20:25 within a sphere of of of agency and and3:20:29 mentality well well then you can ground3:20:31 them there as well so you can add that3:20:32 to the mix morality teleology so many3:20:35 things about uh you know moral3:20:37 accountability and stuff like that so3:20:39 many other things that you can add to3:20:40 the mix obviously there's going to be a3:20:42 back and forth on those points but the3:20:43 point is that there's so much more you3:20:45 can say i don't see why we say oh well3:20:46 it's a draw here and so yeah that's the3:20:50 end of the3:20:51 yeah yeah it's definitely not a job3:20:52 because at this moment in time3:20:54 alex is you know and again i'm speaking3:20:57 different from your perspective i'm3:20:59 thinking as the audience member3:21:00 i just felt like he was just being3:21:02 assertive with his opinion he wasn't3:21:04 really explaining maybe because it's3:21:05 three and a half hours or three hours in3:21:07 so he was probably like okay3:21:09 you know he's you know sort of tied a3:21:11 little bit and he's just making his3:21:13 point3:21:14 but he just asserted the opinion that3:21:15 there was no difference in explanatory3:21:18 power now the second aspect would be3:21:20 brute contingency versus necessity now3:21:23 he's trying to say it seems like to me3:21:26 is well you've got this being which3:21:29 requires an explanation but doesn't have3:21:31 an explanation3:21:33 yeah or is a contingent thing but3:21:35 doesn't have an explanation this thing3:21:37 that doesn't require an explanation3:21:40 what's the ontological difference3:21:42 between the two3:21:44 yeah is that right3:21:45 yeah he said you're talking about3:21:46 contingency and you talk about this3:21:48 contingent being a necessary being3:21:50 what's the ontological difference3:21:51 because on the face of it3:21:53 it sounds like you're saying the same3:21:55 thing brute contingency no explanation3:21:57 this thing also no explanation and3:22:00 you're saying no hold on there may be an3:22:02 ontological difference and there would3:22:04 be an ontological difference between the3:22:07 two3:22:08 one of the ways to identify the3:22:10 ontological differences would to say3:22:13 this thing necessary thing does not have3:22:16 arbitrary limits3:22:18 whereas everything that's contingent has3:22:21 arbitrary limits and if it has arbitrary3:22:24 limits you're going to ask the question3:22:26 why those particular limits and those3:22:29 particular attributes as opposed to3:22:30 other attributes was this necessary3:22:33 thing doesn't have arbitrary limits3:22:36 now he might turn around and say well3:22:38 can we be you know3:22:40 deductively logically certain about this3:22:42 you're saying no no hold on3:22:44 on the3:22:45 explanatory power perspective3:22:48 everything that has arbitrary limits3:22:50 from a scientific epistemic point of3:22:52 view we seek for an explanation and in3:22:56 fact based upon3:22:58 you know our conceivability3:23:00 this is how we conceive3:23:03 things are contingent because they have3:23:04 arbitrary limits they could have been3:23:07 different we could conceive of being3:23:09 different3:23:10 so we have a win in this column for the3:23:13 necessary being3:23:15 yeah as opposed to with the mind3:23:18 on this particular point comparing the3:23:20 contingent brute contingency with3:23:22 nassari with the neso being over the3:23:25 contingent being continued brute3:23:27 fact in that perspective so it just3:23:30 seemed like when he was trying to say3:23:32 either right then when he said it's a3:23:34 tie or he's saying it doesn't give you3:23:36 any more explanation it just gives you3:23:38 you know more metaphysical commitments3:23:40 and costs3:23:42 it didn't really seem to come across3:23:44 that way and3:23:46 uh you know it just seemed like he3:23:48 wasn't really engaged in a consistent3:23:51 process in the arguments then3:23:54 i mean anyway that's the review done uh3:24:13 okay uh3:24:14 um i don't know how to open up this uh i3:24:16 do again appreciate all the analysis you3:24:19 put into this and um uh3:24:22 yeah i guess let me just get straight to3:24:24 the meat of the topic right3:24:26 for the most part i agree with you guys3:24:28 that there it must be eventually a3:24:30 necessary being but i guess my main3:24:32 contention um3:24:34 lies in i guess the reasoning especially3:24:37 with uh the infinite uh3:24:39 the infinite uh sequence of things so so3:24:42 for example when you're saying okay if3:24:43 we count from or i'll avoid using the3:24:46 word from so like uh3:24:48 to get to the present situation3:24:50 hold on hold on a second brother i want3:24:52 to stop you there because3:24:54 you have to understand that the3:24:56 contingency argument that we were3:24:58 discussing and using towards the latter3:25:00 part of the discussion3:25:02 had absolutely nothing to do with what3:25:04 we were discussing about earlier3:25:07 and the actual infinite there were there3:25:09 were three3:25:10 entirely different3:25:12 discussions3:25:14 yes3:25:15 so3:25:16 the the actual infinite had nothing to3:25:18 do with proving god's existence uh in a3:25:21 manner3:25:22 that was consistent with the contingency3:25:24 argument it was a totally different3:25:26 point3:25:27 right i i think the the the uh the3:25:30 infinite sequence one was uh3:25:32 yeah it's a different point but i3:25:34 believe it's it's used to contribute to3:25:36 the the conclusion is it not no no it's3:25:39 not the that's that's in the column3:25:41 cosmological yeah so3:25:43 so here's here's what what i'm saying3:25:46 we chose to discuss3:25:48 uh3:25:49 about three different topics3:25:52 that were not necessarily3:25:54 related to each other there were some3:25:56 points that were overlapping but what we3:25:58 discussed in the beginning about the uh3:26:02 actual infinite by successive edition or3:26:05 infinity in general had absolutely3:26:07 nothing to do with the later part of the3:26:09 discussion of the contingency argument3:26:11 it was a separate point that alex had3:26:14 written on in the past we read his paper3:26:17 and we wanted to engage with it because3:26:19 we don't3:26:20 um we don't accept that an actual3:26:22 infinite can be formed by successive3:26:24 edition but that has to do with the3:26:26 kalam cosmological argument not the3:26:29 contingency argument so it's two3:26:30 separate things3:26:32 all right3:26:33 um okay i guess that's my main3:26:35 convention that i only had a contention3:26:37 with that successive edition uh3:26:40 that you guys have been discussing um3:26:43 uh can i discuss it maybe you can yeah3:26:44 maybe you can briefly just yeah3:26:46 yeah so what i'm saying is you can3:26:48 disagree with that and i'm gonna we're3:26:50 gonna give you free time to talk but i3:26:52 just wanted to be clear that that was3:26:54 not related to the latter part of the3:26:57 contingency argument discussion that's3:26:59 the point i just want to make clear3:27:01 before you started talking but yeah go3:27:03 ahead okay yeah um so like uh you3:27:06 brought up the example of like uh uh if3:27:09 you if a person successfully counts3:27:11 for an eternity like he was always3:27:13 counting right um and then you ask him3:27:16 to halt at a certain number uh and in3:27:18 that scenario i do believe you kind of3:27:20 come that's you run into an issue like3:27:22 okay what number is that person gonna be3:27:24 at right uh i do believe yeah of course3:27:26 there's gonna be issue there but uh for3:27:28 some reason when you formulate it in3:27:29 another way when you say when if the3:27:32 person is counting down to a certain3:27:34 point in time uh at any point in time3:27:36 you ask him what number is that i think3:27:38 you can he can give you a particular3:27:40 answer a thousand years ago he's gonna3:27:42 be at a number that's uh a finite number3:27:45 two thousand years ago he's going to be3:27:46 at a finite number so it seems there3:27:48 that that if you formulate it in a3:27:49 certain way um it seems that the con the3:27:53 issue does not3:27:54 result how is that any different though3:27:57 because yes sure i mean if we accept the3:27:59 arbitrariness of you know3:28:01 the time he arrived at you know let's3:28:03 say zero or one or whatever if we accept3:28:06 that and look past it then yes then any3:28:08 any finite time in in in you know any3:28:12 any point in the infinite past is going3:28:14 to have a3:28:15 a a particular order3:28:18 relative to3:28:20 the arbitrary point that we stopped at3:28:22 but then the question really is about3:28:24 the arbitrary point not how you3:28:25 metricate that time after you've3:28:28 selected the arbitrary point i mean3:28:29 that's3:28:31 right um3:28:32 yeah yeah uh i i guess the i think the3:28:36 issue the reason why the issue is3:28:37 removed is that you have selected a3:28:40 reference right if you don't select that3:28:41 reference if you say oh you he's always3:28:44 been counting and he's been counting up3:28:45 right then what what happens where is3:28:47 the reference it's actually you're3:28:49 assuming that it's at a beginning that3:28:52 that's the issue i think yeah but yeah3:28:53 yeah yeah but that's very artificial3:28:55 though i mean yes sure you can just3:28:56 arbitrarily select the reference just3:28:58 assume you know you you got it covered3:29:00 but then it's not that's just going to3:29:02 be3:29:03 arbitrary because it just depends on3:29:05 what point you you you select as the3:29:07 arbitrary point that you're going to3:29:09 make the you know the the the3:29:12 um3:29:13 the the basically the point that that3:29:15 identifies the ordinality of the set so3:29:18 um so i guess that's that's the issue3:29:20 really3:29:21 um so that that so the issue remains i3:29:23 mean we're not saying that okay so once3:29:24 you do identify an arbitrary point yes3:29:26 of course so you can3:29:28 i think it's backwards3:29:29 i mean3:29:31 i mean i understand like why would you3:29:32 choose this point rather than another3:29:34 point but i think that choose by doing3:29:35 the first scenario you are choosing an3:29:37 impossible scenario because then that's3:29:40 because like the reference is beyond the3:29:42 finite set right that is the issue if3:29:44 you say there is a one references beyond3:29:47 the finite site and one one of them is3:29:49 in it right obviously you can't get from3:29:51 the infinite to the finite3:29:53 yeah but how is how is okay this is so3:29:55 this so i think i was right earlier when3:29:57 i3:29:58 suspected that um3:30:00 you were talking about this whole like3:30:01 uh aristotelian potential infinite thing3:30:04 maybe because3:30:05 how does that deal with the issue3:30:07 because the whole issue is selecting the3:30:10 point3:30:10 you know that that anchor point from3:30:12 which you're going to make everything3:30:15 the ordinality of every other point3:30:16 relative to it i mean that's3:30:18 you can select it and move on just we3:30:21 can pretend there's no problem but yeah3:30:23 the issue is that well there really does3:30:24 seem to be one3:30:26 so i don't know how that's solved3:30:29 by just i mean we just as if we're3:30:31 pretending okay guys let's just look3:30:32 past it let's just select a reference3:30:34 point in3:30:35 the finite past or in the present3:30:37 and then there seems to not be an issue3:30:40 with the id notion of an eternal past uh3:30:42 i mean i mean i mean i i guess you don't3:30:45 have to necessarily say okay so it works3:30:47 in one case and it doesn't work in3:30:48 another let's ignore it i think they3:30:50 then we should investigate why does it3:30:52 work in one case and not working and the3:30:54 other one okay great yeah so maybe try3:30:56 to try to help me understand why it3:30:57 works in the case when you arbitrarily3:31:00 select a3:31:01 um3:31:03 because my suggestion would be like that3:31:05 it lies within the finite sets right it3:31:08 lies within a number that you can ask3:31:10 right it doesn't you can you can you can3:31:12 generalize it say it's x it doesn't have3:31:13 to be zero right and say okay how many3:31:16 numbers till it reaches x and it's going3:31:17 to be like x minus one x minus two right3:31:19 so yeah yeah but then i can still ask3:31:21 see so so that x right i can ask the3:31:24 very same concern that was brought up3:31:25 earlier they can just ask that question3:31:27 well hey why isn't x like a thousand3:31:29 years ago because certainly there was3:31:31 enough time for you to reject the extra3:31:33 thousand years ago so3:31:34 that i worried the worry doesn't go away3:31:37 it3:31:38 seems3:31:39 resist yeah3:31:41 yeah yeah i get i get what you're saying3:31:42 uh i do get what you're saying um3:31:47 from what i'm what i want to convey i3:31:49 think is to say well in in in if you3:31:52 consider an eternal universe an internal3:31:54 space whatever you want to say it3:31:55 actually is kind of arbitrary where you3:31:57 where you're going wherever you're going3:31:58 to put it right you're going to have to3:31:59 eventually select the reference point to3:32:02 choose from right you know if you if you3:32:04 say universal yeah3:32:06 yeah so that precisely is the problem3:32:08 uh so i don't know what you what you3:32:09 will do because okay so me personally i3:32:11 mean i i'm i i i i am a causal finitist3:32:15 right and i don't believe the past is3:32:17 infinite i know those two are3:32:19 slightly separate things but but uh the3:32:22 um the thing is3:32:24 i mean if we're saying i agree that you3:32:26 don't need to commit to that in order to3:32:29 write an argument for god's existence3:32:30 it's definitely not required3:32:33 but it just seems that there is a lot to3:32:36 say about that there's a strong case to3:32:37 make there3:32:38 and and uh3:32:40 i i guess like why not right but then3:32:43 the point here is that well if you're3:32:45 saying that's not required sure3:32:47 and maybe you do hold to that3:32:49 taymian view of perpetual creation3:32:52 uh3:32:54 see yourself there's two issues isn't it3:32:56 there's an issue of first issue is3:32:58 is the past finite that's the first3:33:01 question and then the second question is3:33:04 causal finitism is that true is that3:33:06 necessary3:33:08 yeah is it3:33:09 is it the only possibility there's two3:33:11 separate issues3:33:13 so3:33:13 if you have a concern about uh whether3:33:16 it's logically impossible to have an3:33:19 actual infinite number of events that's3:33:22 one thing yeah3:33:24 yeah well that's well that's you know3:33:26 that's a possibility3:33:27 the second issue would be of causal3:33:29 finitism or causal infinitism3:33:32 yeah that's the second issue3:33:35 yeah now even alex malpass3:33:37 you know according to the discussion3:33:39 uh abdul rahman mentioned it a couple of3:33:41 times he says well you lean to alex3:33:44 malpath to causal finitism he seemed to3:33:48 acknowledge that he does lean towards3:33:49 that position3:33:51 that yeah although there may be this3:33:53 discussion about can you have an3:33:54 infinite past3:33:56 an infinite timeline that's one3:33:58 discussion3:33:59 he leans towards this idea of causal3:34:01 finitism3:34:05 two separate issues3:34:07 yeah i think you've got to be careful3:34:08 not to conflate the two3:34:10 right i i do believe i i object to both3:34:12 like i i i would object to both of them3:34:14 actually um like in in the case of the3:34:17 causal affinitism uh i i mean i can for3:34:20 i can give you an example like a3:34:22 mathematical example where okay you3:34:23 don't necessarily have to start at a uh3:34:25 either a set point um you just at any3:34:28 point you can apply a rule and you can3:34:30 generate all the other points there are3:34:32 there are rules there are rules like3:34:34 there are uh mathematical theories for3:34:36 this where you can just select the point3:34:37 there's one rule you follow and whatever3:34:39 whatever point you start at you can3:34:41 generate all the other numbers3:34:43 um3:34:44 uh i i and i guess yeah but is that3:34:46 causal finitism3:34:51 it's like whatever point you start out3:34:52 you're gonna end up with everything else3:34:55 don't think that's really causal3:34:56 finitism as being discussed here3:34:59 causal financialism3:35:01 you know would be rather to do with3:35:03 things that are concrete concrete3:35:05 objects things that require an3:35:07 explanation to a previous thing or is3:35:10 caused by previous thing not really3:35:12 we're not really talking about3:35:13 mathematical abstract3:35:15 ideas3:35:16 which would be slightly different3:35:19 so we're talking about the concrete um3:35:21 so for so like if we take for an example3:35:24 i mean i don't i don't know a really3:35:25 good example for this because um3:35:28 it tends to be it's3:35:30 paradox isn't it that would be a good3:35:32 example3:35:34 i'm not entirely i'll be honest i'm not3:35:36 entirely familiar with the grim reaper's3:35:38 paradox i'm going to have to read up on3:35:39 that before i can discuss that3:35:41 no problem that's fine that's cool3:35:43 that's cool but i think as jake3:35:45 mentioned earlier um3:35:49 it may seem as though they're connected3:35:51 and some of these points will overlap3:35:54 with alex when we were when these guys3:35:56 were discussing with it but they are3:35:58 separate points that were being raised3:36:00 um yes and i think i think the issue of3:36:04 counting down a beginningless series for3:36:07 alex he's trying to say the beginning3:36:09 beginningless series can end3:36:11 so he's not taking arbitrary point he's3:36:14 saying it can end3:36:15 you can end the count3:36:18 yeah yeah3:36:19 yes uh so he's saying that's different3:36:21 to a uh a series that begins it3:36:25 begins but does not end yeah so he's3:36:29 saying that's a different scenario in3:36:31 that situation3:36:33 uh and so if you're trying to say yeah3:36:36 but you can take an arbitrary position3:36:38 within that count3:36:40 then i think that's slightly different3:36:42 to what uh alex is trying to say because3:36:45 he's trying to say you can't end the3:36:46 count yeah he's not saying you can come3:36:48 to an arbitrary position3:36:50 but then you've got the problem that3:36:51 abdulrahman's already explained and jake3:36:53 explained earlier is that3:36:55 what's the sufficient reason what's the3:36:57 explanation as to why you're at that3:37:00 particular position3:37:01 yeah3:37:02 in that series so let's say for example3:37:05 uh you're3:37:07 you know 1 billion and 203:37:10 uh3:37:11 point towards3:37:13 a zero yeah so you know that gap is 13:37:16 billion and 20. well why is it 1 billion3:37:18 and 20 that you've reached at that point3:37:21 where you've got this3:37:22 gap between that and zero you know3:37:25 because there's an order there that's3:37:26 taking place and then what abdullah is3:37:28 saying if i understand him correctly is3:37:30 he saying well unless you're saying it's3:37:32 purely arbitrary there's no metric3:37:35 there's no way of measuring between one3:37:37 point to another point yeah3:37:39 then it's just literally but then if you3:37:41 do that then you lose the whole power of3:37:43 the argument now of what you're trying3:37:45 to say or what alex was trying to say3:37:47 which is about counting down and being3:37:50 able to end a beginningless3:37:52 series3:37:54 yeah i i would i would like my only last3:37:57 input to that one to that issue i guess3:38:00 would be um it's not entirely arbitrary3:38:02 you don't pick it just because of3:38:03 nothing usually you would pick it3:38:05 because you have a certain type of3:38:06 relationship to it right uh so like uh3:38:10 morse generally speaking we have3:38:13 in in aviation for example we have we3:38:15 set uh3:38:17 north south and latitude lines of3:38:19 latitude to kind of like compare two for3:38:21 example it's not like completely3:38:22 arbitrary and like so it's defined in3:38:25 relation to what like um what what what3:38:28 how we relate to it i think um and in in3:38:31 case of time it's like it's like a3:38:33 coincidence it's a it's a coincidental3:38:36 space like uh how much3:38:38 how much time until those two things go3:38:40 inside uh in a time in a timely manner3:38:44 and in space it's like3:38:46 yeah yeah yeah no i understand you're3:38:47 saying it's a relation it's like a it's3:38:49 a mental construct between two things uh3:38:54 in order to understand like you know3:38:55 what is northward itself et cetera but3:38:58 you said maybe just as a final quick3:39:00 point uh i was gonna say something that3:39:02 you can't remember so yeah i was gonna3:39:04 give you this example of imagining3:39:06 you've got an infinite number of cookies3:39:09 in a cookie jar yeah and this person has3:39:13 been eating them3:39:14 for an er for3:39:17 beginningless time yeah right um3:39:20 so would that be3:39:24 would he complete the series would he3:39:26 complete the eating of all of the3:39:28 cookies3:39:29 yeah he would never he would never3:39:30 complete the eating of all the cookies3:39:32 yeah3:39:33 no he but he would though wouldn't he if3:39:35 he's infinitely been taking a cookie out3:39:37 of the cookie jar and there's an3:39:38 infinite number of cookies there's a3:39:40 correspondence between every3:39:43 cookie with every3:39:45 thing that he's eaten3:39:48 yes um my intuition is driving me to say3:39:51 he would continuously be eating the3:39:53 cookies3:39:54 well yeah3:39:56 you could say that but you could also3:39:58 say that he has he would have completed3:40:00 the task as well3:40:03 uh i don't think i i just think if you3:40:05 assume that he completed the task um3:40:07 there might there may be i may be3:40:09 introducing a a contradiction um3:40:15 yeah3:40:16 yeah so3:40:17 so what alex would say is that you he3:40:18 would have completed the task or he he3:40:21 completes the task because he for every3:40:24 end cookie he would eat he would eat3:40:27 there for the total number of cookies3:40:29 and if the cookies are infinite then3:40:31 he's eaten3:40:32 all cookies yeah the problem occurs is3:40:36 can you get to a stage where you3:40:38 interrupt him while he's eating the3:40:40 cookies3:40:42 if he's been endlessly eating the3:40:43 cookies3:40:46 and that's the problem you can't get to3:40:48 a stage where you can interrupt him and3:40:50 i think that was part of the contention3:40:52 that jake raised with alex uh in the3:40:56 discussion which is this guy who's3:40:58 counting down from infinity yeah3:41:01 to zero could you get to a point where3:41:04 you interrupted his counting or you3:41:06 overheard him counting you know 20 19 183:41:11 you couldn't3:41:12 because if he's been endlessly3:41:14 counting he would have completed the3:41:16 task3:41:17 and there would be no point where he3:41:20 wouldn't have completed the task3:41:22 right um3:41:24 i i do i definitely think there's being3:41:26 some there's something there's something3:41:28 wrong with that phrasing of that of that3:41:30 question um either because if he was3:41:33 infinitely eating the cookies3:41:35 um3:41:36 you're assuming i'm assuming either3:41:38 either that he was he's contin he is now3:41:41 continuously eating the cookies3:41:43 or that he has already completed it so3:41:45 if it's3:41:46 because what you're thinking yourself is3:41:49 by he's always infinitely eating the3:41:51 cookies he's eating3:41:53 an endless number of cookies isn't it3:41:56 yeah so3:41:58 if so if you had an infinite number of3:42:00 cookies you had this job with an3:42:01 infinite number of cookies and you said3:42:03 right3:42:04 you have to finish the jar3:42:07 yeah and you start you said yeah well3:42:09 he's not gonna finish the job because if3:42:11 he starts he's never gonna finish the3:42:13 job but if he's didn't begin3:42:16 could he have completed the task3:42:19 if he never began to i.e he was end and3:42:22 this is the point that um3:42:25 jake's raised with alex is saying well3:42:28 when you say he didn't begin are you3:42:30 equivocating that he never attempted to3:42:32 do it or are you saying that he's always3:42:34 doing it and if he's always counting3:42:37 down that he's always counting3:42:40 yeah yeah3:42:42 so i3:42:43 i would rephrase it is like if he's3:42:44 doing it in the present tense right if3:42:46 he's eating the cooking cookies and he's3:42:49 doing it i didn't like ad infinitum3:42:51 right like juice continuously and he'll3:42:53 never finish it um yeah but if you're if3:42:55 you're taking it from like a uh3:42:57 like a temporal perspective right for3:43:00 every end cookie uh he eats a cookie3:43:02 right yeah then yeah he does finish it3:43:05 in that case and3:43:07 the problem then becomes well can you3:43:09 interrupt him3:43:11 yeah but then i think would introduce3:43:12 the temporal aspect right there exactly3:43:15 that's that's the issue that's the3:43:16 that's the problem yourself that's what3:43:18 i created3:43:25 yeah yeah i actually completely agree3:43:27 with you it's like it's almost like one3:43:28 of your uh one of your podcasts with the3:43:30 argument for for because there's motion3:43:32 there has to be a mover right um3:43:37 but yeah pretty good well i i found it i3:43:40 don't know one of you one of your3:43:41 podcasts sounded like that but i'm i'm3:43:42 incomplete i'm i'm on board with that3:43:44 idea that there's motion there has to be3:43:46 a mover um uh so yeah if because because3:43:50 you can you because we are at the3:43:51 present moment right and there has been3:43:53 an infinite time that has a lot right or3:43:56 or no all right assuming that there3:43:58 could have been an infinite time that3:43:59 elapsed3:44:00 um just because there is a present3:44:03 moment um we have to assume that uh3:44:07 that like there has to be something that3:44:08 selects this particular moment in in3:44:10 whatever sense that it is either that3:44:13 there was a beginning or or or god3:44:16 specifically selected this particular3:44:18 instance3:44:20 yeah yeah so i'm okay with that3:44:22 yeah3:44:24 and i think the other arguments have3:44:25 been raised particularly at the end of3:44:27 the discussion i think demonstrates that3:44:30 it it's not the case that uh necessary3:44:33 being without with the mind is equal to3:44:36 a3:44:36 either a necessary being without a mind3:44:38 or a brute contingent3:44:40 fact yeah i think3:44:42 we would try to demonstrate that i don't3:44:45 think that's the case3:44:47 and i think3:44:48 it's more3:44:50 i think personally i just see it as3:44:51 people's biases that they just want to3:44:54 explain away god3:44:56 and so things like that by the way3:44:58 i don't know if uh3:45:00 i'm not in control of uh who's next on3:45:03 abdul man3:45:05 thank you sir3:45:09 we've got here last call brothers3:45:17 hello3:45:18 hello3:45:19 yes uh salaam alaikum brothers how are3:45:22 you alexander we're3:45:24 good uh i just wanted to say guys that3:45:28 i don't mean anything uh as an insult3:45:30 the way3:45:32 uh the way that i commented earlier uh i3:45:35 really don't mean it like that3:45:37 yeah it's okay we're not taking it as an3:45:39 insult it's fine3:45:41 uh the only problem is3:45:44 if i uh3:45:46 just um because i've been waiting so3:45:47 long here on the link and i've been3:45:49 working just uh if you give me a second3:45:51 you know because this3:45:53 these things take take time you know to3:45:55 get going uh3:45:56 i need to warm up a little bit uh3:45:59 you know in a sense of uh3:46:01 what uh what my actual point was uh you3:46:03 were you wanted to talk about mortal3:46:05 collapse right3:46:07 yes that's right that's that's what i3:46:09 sent to you in the private chat and uh3:46:12 yes uh so3:46:14 just let me start with a little bit3:46:15 easier easier3:46:17 you know let's3:46:18 i hope you'll give me 10 to 15 minutes3:46:20 and i know you guys are tired bro we3:46:22 we're gonna give you five minutes3:46:24 insha'allah yeah yeah we don't have that3:46:26 much time we don't we've been going so3:46:28 so so so um let me make it easy you said3:46:31 that you want to say that the strong psr3:46:35 doesn't lead to modal collapse right3:46:37 okay yeah yes that's right but uh3:46:39 i i3:46:41 i have a different starting point than3:46:42 everybody else3:46:44 for me3:46:45 personally and i i i think that it was3:46:48 friedrich nietzsche wanted to remark you3:46:50 know he said actually that most of the3:46:51 philosophy is personal3:46:53 and uh he also said that most of the3:46:56 philosophy is actually fiction uh3:46:58 whatever he meant by that3:46:59 but uh you know it gives us it gives us3:47:02 a little bit leeway to have our own3:47:03 starting point i think and i have no3:47:05 problem3:47:06 in having a starting point for myself3:47:09 personally a revelation you know for3:47:11 example quran you know i i prefer3:47:14 to use a quranic argument instead of3:47:17 instead of arguments that we just pick3:47:18 up you know3:47:19 on the air3:47:21 um3:47:22 what argument do you think we're using3:47:23 that's not quranic3:47:27 well they are quranic but uh i don't3:47:29 think you make you make a point that3:47:31 they aren't necessarily so i think3:47:34 i think you guys are that's right that's3:47:35 that's that's irrelevant i mean the3:47:37 person you're speaking to doesn't take3:47:39 the quran as an authority so you adding3:47:41 the fact that this is a quranic argument3:47:43 does nothing to convince the person so3:47:45 that's not the point the point is what3:47:47 arguments are we making that are not3:47:49 quranic i mean3:47:51 no no no3:47:52 no3:47:54 you you you are not3:47:57 you're not you're not making the point3:48:00 that uh3:48:01 that you assert that your axioms are are3:48:03 actually independent of your own mind3:48:06 you see you're you're trying to3:48:08 understand3:48:10 maybe you can explain what you mean3:48:13 sure sure3:48:14 you guys are trying to be on par with3:48:16 them you you you guys are uh3:48:19 you guys are kind of submitting to their3:48:20 own methodology3:48:24 who said that so what so what would you3:48:25 do so if you had somebody wanted to3:48:27 genuinely have a discussion with you and3:48:29 said listen i don't believe in god3:48:31 because3:48:33 such and such and such are my axioms and3:48:35 belief and this is my complete theory of3:48:37 reality what would you do3:48:42 well uh i would identify3:48:45 his motivations through the through the3:48:46 way that he talks that he explains3:48:48 things i think it's not very difficult3:48:50 for example i will take case study of3:48:52 the gentleman you you interviewed3:48:55 uh you can you can see how he's in3:48:58 injecting and uh and kind of like3:49:00 retreating every time every time you you3:49:02 you pull a punch right3:49:04 everything you actually you would psycho3:49:06 you would psychoanalyze them like3:49:07 psychologically yeah but3:49:10 i think what it is is that our3:49:13 we we're not3:49:15 i don't think we're necessarily gonna uh3:49:17 we're there to try to convince the3:49:18 person3:49:20 you know alex or whoever it is that3:49:21 comes on3:49:22 i think part of our motivation to do3:49:25 these types of discussions is to3:49:28 enlighten the audience if the audience3:49:30 comes to that conclusion that they see a3:49:32 particular3:49:34 um3:49:35 you know3:49:36 particular psychological or bias or3:49:38 whatever it is and that's what the3:49:40 audience are going to come to the3:49:41 conclusion what we want to demonstrate3:49:44 is3:49:45 you know um we don't want to get into a3:49:48 debate about his own personal3:49:49 motivations because people might you3:49:51 know get upset you know or question3:49:54 you know our honesty but that's the core3:49:57 that's the core sherry if that's where3:49:58 you need to get to3:49:59 you you don't understand3:50:01 exactly3:50:04 let me speak for a second3:50:06 sheriff you have to drive it to that3:50:08 point because that is that is the the3:50:10 object of of life and uh3:50:12 and to to finally establish the truth3:50:14 and it's and it's about power struggle3:50:15 and all of this that's exactly what it's3:50:17 about3:50:18 it's not just about some kind of3:50:20 academic3:50:21 this course okay and then and then3:50:22 getting nowhere with it i i don't know3:50:24 we didn't say it's only about that3:50:26 senate we're just saying that this is3:50:28 part of it and it's for the audience and3:50:30 we're not necessarily trying to convince3:50:31 the person a person3:50:34 a lot of people benefit from this they3:50:36 tell us they benefit from it spiritually3:50:38 intellectually some people even convert3:50:40 from a lot of the brothers out there in3:50:42 the work they're doing so i don't know3:50:43 what you're trying to say it's not3:50:45 beneficial it doesn't bring people to3:50:46 allah well it does does it benefit3:50:48 muslims and keep them steadfast some3:50:50 muslims believe so3:50:52 is this the quranic methodology that3:50:54 that you are that you are doing so3:50:56 what's your point i don't get it3:50:57 but3:50:59 what you're trying to say oh well i3:51:00 would disagree that our experience tells3:51:02 us otherwise3:51:03 i think what you're you see what you're3:51:05 trying to say is that okay you need to3:51:06 get into3:51:08 a you know a deep discussion about his3:51:11 um his motivations and things like that3:51:19 the point here is this if i want to3:51:21 change somebody3:51:22 it's very rare that people change3:51:25 in these types of forums what we're3:51:27 trying to do is we're trying to instill3:51:29 confidence into the muslims to make them3:51:32 understand that actually these are3:51:35 atheist arguments yeah these are what3:51:38 they say3:51:39 now3:51:40 we're gonna we're not i'm not gonna be3:51:42 here to tell you3:51:43 how to perceive particular people who3:51:46 promote these atheist arguments but we3:51:48 want to show3:51:50 though is that ultimately these3:51:52 arguments3:51:53 are not that strong yeah but why are you3:51:56 dealing with him why why did you guys3:51:58 deal with this man in such a weak way3:52:00 when he asked when he said to you look3:52:01 there's a okay i'm going to come to the3:52:03 model collapse now when he said to you3:52:05 if you have a necessary being and then3:52:07 then there's there's necessarily model3:52:09 collapse because you have to say that3:52:10 everything else is necessary why didn't3:52:12 you just affirm that that that is3:52:14 exactly what it is3:52:15 that god's actions are necessary3:52:18 i disagree with you we disagree with you3:52:20 we theologically disagree with you so3:52:22 that's another thing that we can get3:52:24 into we're not going to agree there are3:52:26 different muslim positions on this so3:52:28 what do you want to say3:52:30 once again you cannot escape it you3:52:32 cannot escape okay so what was it3:52:35 because we're going to end this right3:52:36 now what was my response to him can you3:52:37 explain my response to him3:52:41 i have to remember right now because i3:52:43 you you're interrupting me and uh3:52:46 no i don't think you understood my3:52:47 response to him3:52:49 you see the point in here is that you're3:52:50 acting as if i didn't give him a3:52:52 response yeah sure you want to say3:52:53 everything is necessary3:52:57 okay there you go so you weren't3:52:59 following when i said when he said that3:53:00 necessary existence entails modal3:53:02 collapse i challenged that but you don't3:53:04 know how i challenged it what was your3:53:06 listening3:53:08 the point is you don't know brother the3:53:10 point is you don't know i yeah we talked3:53:11 about libertarian free will and how3:53:13 explanation works with libertarian free3:53:15 will but you're not interested in any of3:53:17 that which is okay but you're not3:53:19 listening so but if you're interested3:53:20 maybe you would understand and then you3:53:21 would maybe3:53:23 it's very simple it's very simple it's3:53:24 very simple there's a necessary being3:53:26 with a will and therefore if you have a3:53:28 temporal what did you say if you have a3:53:30 if you have a temporal universe then3:53:31 there had to be uh if he had if the3:53:34 necessary being had a will then uh then3:53:37 it explains the temporal universe if it3:53:39 didn't have a will3:53:40 collapse argument that that's an3:53:42 argument for the necessary being having3:53:45 mind or agency however you want to put3:53:46 it but that's not the modal collapse3:53:48 discussion he's saying motor collapse3:53:51 modal collapse see what it is is3:53:54 the modal collapse argument is that if3:53:56 god had to choose only one possible way3:54:00 to create3:54:02 yeah because by nature3:54:04 god had to choose one particular thing3:54:06 then everything within the universe3:54:09 becomes necessary3:54:11 yeah3:54:12 because god could only choose one3:54:14 particular universe yeah so everything3:54:17 becomes necessary in that way that is3:54:19 from the outside of the argument but you3:54:20 know why why don't you accept that the3:54:23 only reason why we see that that3:54:25 necessary that necessary being would3:54:27 would have a necessary uh uh how you say3:54:31 what would cause necessary reality why3:54:33 why don't you stay from the point of the3:54:35 observer3:54:37 it's you it only makes sense from the3:54:38 point of observer to say that from the3:54:41 point of view i don't3:54:43 i yeah well3:54:45 i'm not sure i'm not sure um3:54:48 you know how that really addresses the3:54:49 argument per se3:54:51 yeah yeah so there are different3:54:53 positions on this senate you might adopt3:54:54 a different position a theological3:54:56 position on it there are people who3:54:58 disagree with you and there are3:54:59 different discussions back and forth3:55:00 what you want to do is you want to say3:55:02 oh look look it's my position it's3:55:03 simple don't say anything else okay you3:55:06 can do that man and there are people3:55:08 have other positions people benefit from3:55:10 other discussions you don't benefit from3:55:12 them that's okay they're not necessary3:55:14 for you but for you to impose your3:55:17 review on everybody3:55:19 and say yeah that's your claim i asked3:55:21 you for an argument i told you what's3:55:22 un-islamic about what we're saying you3:55:24 didn't say anything what's on islamic3:55:26 about it3:55:27 can you say again okay i'm giving you3:55:29 another chance3:55:30 what is un-islamic about what we're3:55:31 saying3:55:33 is the starting point3:55:35 so so3:55:36 so so for you3:55:39 okay so for you it's only islamic if i3:55:41 start3:55:42 okay wait wait for you it's only islam3:55:46 if i start okay that's your claim there3:55:48 are people who disagree with you senate3:55:50 let's agree to disagree you use that3:55:53 approach may allah give you benefit in3:55:54 it and success we disagree there are3:55:57 people who are more knowledgeable than3:55:59 you there are scholars3:56:01 there are scholars there are scholars3:56:03 there are scholars senate who disagree3:56:06 with you on this so just accept the3:56:08 disagreement right agree to disagree3:56:12 give me one example of the prophet3:56:14 using this approach only one only one is3:56:17 using what do you mean using what3:56:19 approach so you're saying the prophet3:56:22 never spoke to anybody except with the3:56:24 quran3:56:26 he never reasoned with people3:56:28 no never once like this no not no no3:56:31 don't say like this like this so is your3:56:33 claim and this is we're going to end3:56:34 with this is your claim that the prophet3:56:36 sallallahu alaihi wasallam never a3:56:38 reason3:56:41 is it the case he never reasoned with3:56:43 somebody3:56:45 is it the case that he never reasoned3:56:46 with a non-muslim3:56:47 using anything other than a quran the3:56:50 quranic verses the quranic text3:56:53 is that your claim3:56:56 is senate left sorry3:56:58 yeah maybe he left or maybe3:57:00 somebody got tired of it3:57:02 yeah3:57:04 he seemed to uh he seemed to say look he3:57:06 didn't want to offend us that's fine he3:57:08 wanted to take 15 minutes well we don't3:57:10 really have 15 minutes to engage in that3:57:12 discussion that something about modal3:57:14 collapse we want to say that strong psr3:57:16 doesn't lead to mobile collapse i'm not3:57:18 sure if he3:57:23 and then i think he was trying to sort3:57:25 of say that you know it wasn't quranic3:57:28 but at the beginning you said well what3:57:29 isn't quranic and he said which of our3:57:32 and they said no no you don't mention3:57:34 that we say well do you have to mention3:57:35 that it's quranic just to utilize that3:57:38 these are quranic uh arguments and then3:57:42 the end he sort of argued that you know3:57:44 the prophet never used these arguments3:57:46 but if you look at the verses of quran3:57:49 itself3:57:50 whether that is where it criticizes the3:57:53 christians who believe that jesus and3:57:55 mary are gods and it says that they ate3:57:58 meaning that they're contingent beings3:58:00 this is exactly what we mean they're3:58:02 limited dependent creatures yeah3:58:04 therefore implies yeah but his point his3:58:07 point sharif is that you have to use the3:58:09 verse literally like you can't use the3:58:11 meaning or the methodology of the quran3:58:13 and when i asked him well is it your3:58:15 claim obviously he's not going to escape3:58:16 this is it your claim that the prophet3:58:18 only used the quranic text to speak3:58:20 tonight of course he can't say that but3:58:22 then he's saying it's not like this so3:58:24 then again not like what now specify3:58:26 within our discussions what specifically3:58:29 is against the quran sunnah maybe maybe3:58:31 there is something that is but you just3:58:32 need to specify it and we'll be happy to3:58:34 to accept the critique but it's just i3:58:36 you know you know what it is it's really3:58:38 oh i don't understand all this stuff so3:58:40 it's wrong really that's that's really3:58:42 what it is a lot of complicated stuff3:58:45 you know abdul rahman there's one thing3:58:46 i forgot to ask i was going to ask it3:58:48 within the review which is3:58:50 which i think go also goes to the3:58:52 heartless issue which is3:58:54 just because people have contentions3:58:56 against what we say and you mentioned it3:58:59 in the discussion with alex malpass just3:59:01 because people have contingents3:59:02 philosophical contention whatever3:59:04 contentions that they have it doesn't3:59:06 render everything skeptical yeah or you3:59:09 know3:59:10 you know we just can't conclude upon3:59:12 anything3:59:13 and alex agreed upon that3:59:15 yeah and i think that's i think part of3:59:17 it is that issue and i think3:59:20 and the reason why i wanted to raise it3:59:21 in the review when we were discussing3:59:23 the review at the beginning is because3:59:26 what you what the audience has to do3:59:29 is when they look at somebody who's seen3:59:31 as quite a top atheist or whatever it is3:59:33 is not just look at the fact that he has3:59:36 a contention or he has a particular3:59:38 response but look at the response and3:59:42 see if it is compelling and convincing3:59:44 and3:59:45 what i got when i watched the the video3:59:48 and3:59:48 uh you know the the original live3:59:51 discussion3:59:52 was what we understand intuitively from3:59:56 a fitted perspective about allah's3:59:59 existence4:00:01 wasn't really challenged in that yeah he4:00:04 had particular angles and particular4:00:06 critiques and4:00:08 but a lot of it boiled down to4:00:11 uh you know his critiques didn't really4:00:14 go to the fundamental heart of the4:00:16 address4:00:17 yeah of the issue now he may have his4:00:19 own particular biases or whatever it is4:00:21 that's up to him but all his particular4:00:23 assumptions and axioms4:00:25 but that's up to but ultimately you know4:00:28 it didn't really come across that way4:00:29 and i think4:00:30 that's how brothers have got to look at4:00:33 this issue4:00:35 you're going to come across whether it4:00:37 is watches of the quran people are going4:00:40 to have contentions against it the the4:00:42 miraculous nature of the quran they're4:00:44 going to have contentions against the4:00:45 prophecies of the prophet sallallahu4:00:47 alaihi wasallam people are going to4:00:49 argue against every single position4:00:51 within islam4:00:53 you as a muslim have to be able to say4:00:56 irrespective of an argument against it4:00:59 doesn't make it valid yeah or4:01:02 substantive or evidential for me to4:01:05 adopt that yeah so again when it comes4:01:08 to the belief in allah and the rational4:01:10 proofs people have arguments against it4:01:12 doesn't make it4:01:13 necessarily correct or valid or on the4:01:16 balance of things more acceptable uh to4:01:20 adopt that position yeah just4:01:22 yeah yeah just a quick point and4:01:24 as i mentioned to the sun ads and i4:01:27 mentioned4:01:28 so many times that nobody's saying this4:01:31 is necessary for you right nobody people4:01:33 have different approaches right so you4:01:36 i respect him having a different that's4:01:38 fine nobody's saying anybody needs to4:01:40 like study like you know metaphysics and4:01:43 philosophy in order to believe in god we4:01:46 believe the opposite we believe that it4:01:48 is it is a we have direct access through4:01:53 just in just basic human reasoning4:01:56 and intuition to these same facts that4:01:59 we arrive at4:02:00 using these sophisticated philosophical4:02:02 discussions4:02:04 right and and4:02:05 nobody's saying you need to know any of4:02:07 this to believe in god4:02:09 reasonably4:02:10 you can believe reasonably and in fact4:02:13 people do right people they have the the4:02:17 the direct uh you know uh rational4:02:20 access they have the intuition the4:02:22 fitzra and everything and that's4:02:24 actually what we're claiming what we're4:02:25 claiming is that this intuition that we4:02:28 have and this you know4:02:29 reasoning that we have as people4:02:32 generally cross culturally throughout4:02:34 the ages these these are not some things4:02:36 that should be swept under the carpet4:02:38 even through4:02:40 what these people are claiming through4:02:42 you know contemporary analytic4:02:44 philosophy and metaphysics as if that4:02:46 suddenly changed everything and you know4:02:48 the thousands of years of human history4:02:50 we need to like sweep that under the rug4:02:52 because suddenly you know4:02:54 these these things have become4:02:56 completely uh unfounded we're claiming4:02:58 that that's nonsense that's that's what4:03:00 we're showing now you don't need to show4:03:02 that it's it's obvious right but4:03:05 some people might so don't make the4:03:08 claim that you know uh having these4:03:11 discussions is completely useful uh4:03:12 useless i find that selfish because you4:03:14 don't benefit from it which is fine4:03:16 which is i don't think you need it in4:03:18 the first place but then you're just4:03:20 claiming that nobody needs it and nobody4:03:22 benefits from it i think that's shallow4:03:24 and ridiculous yeah and i think you know4:03:26 even even the arguments say well you4:03:28 know4:03:29 uh did the sallam speak exactly like4:03:32 this well you know one there are4:03:35 examples so you can show from the sunnah4:03:37 from4:03:38 life for example when the najardan4:03:40 christians came to the prophet4:03:41 sallallahu alaihi wasallam and asked who4:03:44 is allah what is his lineage4:03:46 uh and about jesus uh isa al-islam where4:03:49 he was son of god and4:03:52 the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam4:03:54 uh responded in a particular way and he4:03:56 talked about the contingent nature4:03:58 didn't use the word contingent but4:04:00 obviously talked about how he ate how he4:04:02 drank how he4:04:03 went was tired how to go to relief4:04:06 nature and he said4:04:08 are these are these the properties of4:04:10 jesus yeah and they said yes all these4:04:13 attributes said yes it goes well if the4:04:15 father if the son has the attributes of4:04:18 the father does the father have these4:04:20 attributes because for them obviously4:04:22 the father4:04:23 is the father of the god and he said no4:04:25 so therefore how can jesus have these4:04:27 attributes and then the surah swords4:04:29 came down and4:04:31 was also revealed4:04:33 in in relation to this particular4:04:34 incident so there are examples like this4:04:36 and many other examples like the bedouin4:04:38 when he saw the footprints in the sand i4:04:40 always told about if you see footprints4:04:42 in the stand and uh4:04:45 tracks of camels what would you say said4:04:46 well caravan would have gone by and said4:04:48 what about stars and sky does this not4:04:50 indicate the existence of a creator4:04:52 there's various examples like this yeah4:04:54 and throughout the islamic history4:04:56 um but4:04:58 just because the what if there wasn't4:05:01 particular types of arguments used then4:05:03 does it mean that it's invalid for4:05:05 example there wasn't arguments about4:05:08 evolution at the time of the prophet4:05:09 sallallahu alaihi they were suddenly you4:05:11 don't find the prophet i'm talking about4:05:13 how humans did not evolve from ape-like4:05:16 creatures yeah yes there are mentions4:05:19 about the nature of human beings and the4:05:21 fact that adam islam was created yeah4:05:24 and didn't have any fathers and4:05:25 therefore didn't evolve but the argument4:05:28 now about evolution or the argument for4:05:32 for instance the uh the weight of4:05:34 science and empiricism have to be4:05:37 addressed4:05:38 yeah and there may have not been a4:05:40 reality and a discourse at the time of4:05:42 the foreign but now when people say the4:05:45 only thing that we can believe in is4:05:47 what we can scientifically prove well4:05:49 you have to address that particular4:05:51 argument now you're going to take from4:05:54 the well of the quran and the sunnah4:05:56 yeah because there's going to be some4:05:58 con4:05:58 you know resonance within the meanings4:06:01 of the verses of quran that we can4:06:03 understand and we can apply today4:06:05 definitely the case but the actual4:06:07 articulation of the argument may be4:06:09 different now because it wasn't a4:06:11 reality at the time of the process4:06:13 so you know it's it's not just4:06:16 um any uh4:06:18 a very literalist quran and suddenly4:06:21 how he spoke is how we spoke speak today4:06:24 you know sallam was dealing with4:06:26 politicians to believe in uh al uzzalata4:06:29 manat but we obviously don't deal with4:06:31 that we have people who believe in4:06:34 you know other types of idolatry worship4:06:36 like you know human beings can make you4:06:38 know are sovereign and can make their4:06:40 own decisions and things like this so4:06:42 you know you have to address4:06:44 uh the the problems and the realities of4:06:46 today yeah4:06:49 so yeah4:06:51 no no4:06:52 it's needed it's needed4:06:54 yeah yeah maybe we'll do a stream about4:06:56 how to do doubt4:06:58 and give it yeah we'll probably do that4:06:59 sometime yeah give examples of the4:07:01 prophets of the past and how they did it4:07:04 how they addressed how fundamentally how4:07:07 they addressed the current concerns of4:07:10 the people at that time so4:07:12 what sha islam addressed was different4:07:15 to what lut al-islam addressed or what4:07:17 ibrahim addressed because they were4:07:19 dealing with the problem of that time4:07:22 and therefore you know the issue is to4:07:25 understand what the problem is today and4:07:28 address that fundamental4:07:31 yeah or evils that exist4:07:34 as opposed to just simply thinking that4:07:36 we just should be repeating the same4:07:38 arguments rather than taking the lessons4:07:41 taking the4:07:42 the meanings from the quran and the4:07:44 sunnah and then being able to apply it4:07:46 today so that you know we bring back4:07:48 people back to the quran and the sunnah4:07:52 so oh yeah so yeah i guess we're going4:07:54 to end it there uh or we are we4:07:56 announcing anything about next time4:07:58 we're doing the episode uh4:08:00 i think we do know morality aren't we4:08:01 morality yeah so4:08:08 uh so yeah i guess that's that [ __ ] if4:08:11 you can like give the closing words i4:08:13 guess4:08:14 i think we've given the closing words in4:08:15 challenges ahead for everybody listening4:08:18 but you actually know just really4:08:19 quickly actually just before4:08:21 it would be really good i know it's a4:08:23 long stream yeah and maybe you know4:08:25 maybe the first three hours of this4:08:27 stream you can watch but if you watch4:08:29 this and then go back and watch the alex4:08:31 malpass discussion you'll be in a better4:08:33 position to understand for those people4:08:36 who are interested in these discussions4:08:38 and want to engage in darwin and want to4:08:40 engage in discussions with people you4:08:42 know on 80s and things like that if you4:08:45 can understand this stream and the and4:08:47 then understand alex malpass stream you4:08:50 would probably cover4:08:52 you know the most sophisticated forms of4:08:54 the arguments against belief in a4:08:56 creator and you'll be more equipped in4:08:58 terms of how to address uh you know4:09:00 belief for the existence of allah so you4:09:03 know4:09:04 for those people interested who want to4:09:06 engage in doubt use it use this as a as4:09:08 a training4:09:09 uh and as a case study to understand the4:09:12 arguments better inshallah4:09:14 but4:09:16 um and inshallah we will go to the outro4:09:28 family4:09:48 you

As-salamu alaykum! Content by SirVival