Ali Dawah - October 18, 20223 ATHEISTS SQUARE UP TO MUSLIM & END UP ARGUING EACH OTHER
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
215.92249
Summary
In this episode, we discuss the argument from contingency and where it came from. Do you agree with the argument? Do you disagree with it? What does it mean and where does it go from here? What are your thoughts on it?
Transcript
00:00:00.000
I've done the seven-day free trial of the Qur'anly app and it exceeded all my expectations.
00:00:04.220
Alhamdulillah, I was worried that it was an overrated product.
00:00:09.020
Prophet's assistant, you can build a habit with the Qur'an by seven-day free trial.
00:00:13.140
There's no credit card details required at all.
00:00:20.100
All that happened was he misconstrued his arguments.
00:00:23.260
My argument was from the argument from contingency.
00:00:39.680
However, the contingency argument, I use it in the form even Tameer used it.
00:00:42.500
So I do it to affirm God Almighty and I then use it to affirm his attributes.
00:00:47.720
So my argument is from the argument from contingency.
00:00:50.160
Do you know it? Do you want me to break it down?
00:00:59.900
The impossible existence is that you have a triangle square or a triangle circle.
00:01:10.400
Which is contingent possibility and necessary existence.
00:01:17.120
Okay, so those two are the area that I'm going to focus on, yeah?
00:01:23.240
Now, do you accept that there are contingent things within our universe?
00:01:28.200
Before we start this, where do you think contingency comes from?
00:01:34.480
Where do you think the idea of contingency came from?
00:01:35.960
Okay, so when you say the idea of contingency, obviously I think people use their logic and
00:01:42.000
For example, that we have things within our universe that is dependent.
00:01:45.560
So, therefore, if there are things that are dependent, we cannot have an infinite regress
00:01:50.460
of dependent things, which is my second argument.
00:01:52.480
That if there are dependent things, do we accept that there is dependent things?
00:01:57.840
They're the same place where contingency comes from.
00:01:59.260
I'm just trying to dig into where it comes from.
00:02:01.420
So, you do not believe that there are dependent things within our universe?
00:02:07.040
Something that relies on something else for its own existence.
00:02:09.700
So, it sounds eerily like 14th century arguments proposed by Barak Spinoza, which were
00:02:17.040
Whoever brought the argument, we are dealing with the argument, not who brought it.
00:02:21.580
So, very simply, do you accept that for your existence you require other things?
00:02:29.000
I'm dependent in the physical sense, not in the moral sense.
00:02:33.980
Yes, because contingency is inherently a moral argument.
00:02:37.060
I'm using the argument for contingency to prove that there's a higher power, which is
00:02:42.940
What I'm saying is, do you accept that you are dependent on other factors to your survival?
00:02:49.140
So, you're essentially saying that there is a chain of dependency.
00:02:57.540
You depend on other things for your continued existence.
00:03:00.560
And this chain of dependency will last forever unless there is a necessary being.
00:03:11.680
So, a necessary being, how do we define this as a thing that does not depend on any other
00:03:20.420
But I'm saying that it does not rely on any other things to depend on for its continued
00:03:46.140
If you would like to believe in such a deity, then you need to accept that God does depend
00:03:51.460
on certain attributes and can be divided conceptually into different...
00:03:56.120
When has his attributes became other than himself?
00:03:58.640
This is where I'm talking about the contingent argument that you're using and what I'm using.
00:04:13.680
So just to make something clear before we come to that.
00:04:15.700
Do you accept there are, like we said, there are dependent things within our universe?
00:04:20.740
Now, do you accept that we cannot have an infinite regress of dependent things?
00:04:30.660
This is a virtual Russell's argument, which I think is fantastic.
00:04:45.120
If I said, God exists and that is a brute fact, and it is, you will laugh at me.
00:04:52.280
But what I'm saying is, what you're proposing to me is, the universe just is, it's a brute
00:04:59.600
Well, the reason I would say that is, because the bottom is raising, you want to go for the
00:05:04.180
simplest explanation with the least assumptions.
00:05:06.340
And God is an assumption to explain the universe.
00:05:13.040
There are dependent things within our universe.
00:05:14.960
There cannot be an infinite regress of dependent things.
00:05:17.780
Therefore, we require a necessary being who is self-sufficient, who is not composed of pieces,
00:05:24.180
So, if you rise to the dependent things within our universe...
00:05:26.500
Now, do you accept, is the universe dependent or independent?
00:05:31.160
Now, what you've done, which is good, which is something that we agree on, you accept
00:05:39.340
You accept independence, you've ascribed it to the universe.
00:05:49.000
All you've done is, you've said, it's not God, it's the universe.
00:06:12.920
Sorry, your argument actually has a fallacy of compensation, because you said, look,
00:06:21.100
But you're looking at the parts to make an assertion about the whole.
00:06:24.120
But even if you talk about the fallacy of composition, you're saying that because the
00:06:27.120
wall is made out of small pieces, it doesn't mean the wall is small.
00:06:31.500
So I'm not even using the argument from composition, because that's the argument from Kalam Cosmological
00:06:38.460
I'm saying, again, I repeat, you said the universe is necessary.
00:06:43.160
I said, well, that's good, because now we agree that we require necessary being.
00:06:47.360
All you've done is you've ascribed it to the universe.
00:06:55.060
If it's composed of pieces, it cannot be necessary.
00:07:00.100
The problem is, the problem is, if it is dependent, what is it dependent on?
00:07:06.720
But the problem is, is that all of these assertions are inherently grounded within an understanding
00:07:10.260
of the world that is inherently Islamic and is inherently religious.
00:07:15.840
But where your arguments come from, historically, actually, I'm telling you, I'm telling you
00:07:25.880
The Islamic Golden Age, 800, 800 years ago, 900 years ago.
00:07:33.200
Humanity has gone through a phase of development throughout time.
00:07:36.040
These arguments that you're telling me now are arguments that, you know, like, people
00:07:44.920
And they proposed them because they didn't have scientific understandings to explain the
00:07:49.520
So they needed to explain the world, which suited the Christian, the religious, the Islamic,
00:07:53.960
the Jew, like, yeah, their interpretation of the world.
00:07:58.620
And that logic was employed with that purpose because there was no other, there was no,
00:08:11.040
Because ultimately it exists in a framework that has now, we now have a better explanation.
00:08:20.540
So, for example, the universe is composed of space and time.
00:08:25.000
And if I cause this brothel to drop, the space in which it drops and the time from when
00:08:31.720
I put my hand on and it falls, this is the universe.
00:08:34.860
Outside the universe, this idea of cause and effect and something having to come into existence.
00:08:41.720
Our rational framework collapses outside this reality, which is ultimately bound up in the
00:08:51.840
But the logical assumptions that you're employing.
00:08:53.920
Because I think the mystery, and I accept that my rational faculties cannot comprehend the
00:09:01.780
reality outside the one we're immediately observing.
00:09:04.920
And I think, and I think to say the universe, it depends on something.
00:09:09.900
It depends on, it's the, yes, it doesn't necessarily.
00:09:20.440
You've told me about the recent scientific experience.
00:09:27.660
So you're saying that the universe is composed of different things.
00:09:41.340
So this is a very important point I need to ask you.
00:09:44.740
So you're saying that the universe is dependent.
00:09:50.540
Because it depends on lots of things within it.
00:09:53.560
Do you accept that he said the universe is independent?
00:10:04.120
It does not rely on anything for its continued existence.
00:10:12.320
So you guys, the great honorable gentlemen here are all in sync.
00:10:20.380
If the universe is independent, means it is necessary.
00:10:23.760
Firstly, that means we both accept that we require a necessary being.
00:10:30.920
The fact that there is dependent things, you require something that's necessary to give rise to it.
00:10:43.120
For example, we have galaxies within our universe.
00:10:45.900
If there were four less galaxies, is that still the same universe?
00:10:49.900
But there are probably galaxies blowing up and destroying the rise we're talking.
00:10:52.580
So that means the universe can be any other way.
00:11:07.720
What I'm saying is you're looking at the pieces and you're saying, look, they have cause and effect.
00:11:13.400
You're saying it belongs to a chain, an unbroken chain of dependence.
00:11:21.340
Your exact words is dependent on something else.
00:11:31.140
But the child doesn't necessarily depend on the mother for its survival.
00:11:39.880
You guys said, I said, what did we say in the beginning?
00:11:45.400
So now what you guys said is the universe is independent and necessary.
00:11:51.060
However, you're saying that I'm jumping the gun.
00:11:53.380
How am I when I'm saying you guys said the universe is independent and necessary?
00:12:01.740
If it's independent, then I said to you, one of my arguments was what?
00:12:04.900
If it can be any other way, and if it's composed of pieces, it cannot be independent.
00:12:18.440
No, this is my answer, that inherently it being composed of pieces, you know, how do you visualize pieces?
00:12:30.760
Look, for example, look, we are a piece of the universe.
00:12:41.780
No, because what it does show is that we have a certain logic in humanity.
00:12:45.960
We have a certain logic on Earth, and certain things work differently than they do in the universe.
00:12:57.140
You've accepted an independent thing, and he's called it the universe.
00:13:02.540
But I'm saying the universe can be any other way.
00:13:09.400
That is not my definition of an independent being.
00:13:12.680
So what I'm saying is how can it be independent and necessary when you have given the attributes
00:13:19.120
What I'm saying, it needs to be necessary to prevent this cause, this regression.
00:13:27.980
Look, if it's necessary, then why is it composed of pieces?
00:13:44.660
It's necessary, self-sufficient, cannot be any other way, and it's not composed of pieces.
00:13:54.700
I'm saying it cannot be self-sufficient because of the following.
00:14:03.360
Of course, because it shows that it's dependent.
00:14:08.200
My friend, is there galaxies within our universe?
00:14:14.280
No, not really, though, because galaxies blow up and explode.
00:14:22.380
But how does that accommodate the fact that the universe is expanding?
00:14:36.520
Energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system.
00:14:43.200
Is there a set amount of energy within our universe?
00:14:48.020
But at one point, if you reverse it, that's where the Big Bang Theory comes from.
00:14:50.780
If you reverse it, they go to a singular point.
00:14:53.080
If there is a set amount of energy within our universe, it is dependent on something else.
00:15:09.080
The truth is these concepts break down outside the universe.
00:15:13.800
If I say I have an infinite amount of biryanis and I eat two biryanis, how many biryanis do I have?
00:15:19.260
It's infinite minus two, which is an impossibility.
00:15:22.080
The concept of infinity doesn't exist in the real world.
00:15:24.440
There is potential infinite, but again, infinite.
00:15:27.000
So now, if you're saying infinite is not in the real world.
00:15:30.660
Our world is the only world I'm talking about, yeah?
00:15:33.660
If there is no infinite, then that shows that it is finite.
00:15:37.300
If it's finite, it requires something else outside itself for its existence, which shows its dependency.
00:15:52.300
I'm saying the logical scaffolding you're using to craft your argument exists.
00:15:57.900
It's, you're right, but within the universe, within time and space, and this idea of dependency
00:16:09.520
But outside this logical framework, these concepts simply, they just simply collapse.
00:16:16.760
But you're saying collapse, but you're not bringing it to collapse.
00:16:20.520
No, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll tell you my, can I tell you my view.
00:16:25.620
First, but before that, you didn't accept that it's a good view.
00:16:30.300
Yeah, all I want to say is my view that where the, where do the ideas of necessity, all
00:16:35.520
of this contingency, where they come from, they come from, they come from a need to unify
00:16:46.080
It came from the idea of repressed tribes, repressed people within a, within a former,
00:16:51.100
within a bigger empire that needed something to stand behind.
00:16:56.580
And from which these, your other views come from.
00:16:58.660
Because then, then you come to the point where, okay, let's say you're, you know,
00:17:02.720
1,500 years ago when Muhammad, you know, when Muhammad came about and he, he, he, like,
00:17:08.220
he, like, you know, united the Arab people, united these tribes and created this huge Islamic
00:17:13.700
empire, destroyed two empires while doing it and created this force.
00:17:17.800
Not the empires, they were trying to destroy them, yeah.
00:17:30.800
Yes, but then, but then you get to the question, okay, use Islam.
00:17:37.220
This is what I'm just telling you, my, my perspective on where your views come from.
00:17:40.660
So that, and then you come to the situation where you don't have the science to describe,
00:17:45.860
You don't have, you don't have a way, you don't have a physical, technological way of understanding
00:17:51.860
You employ logic that is inherently grounded to our perception of the world within planet
00:17:57.540
Without understanding what's going out out there.
00:17:59.800
You use uniformity, irregularity, and certain things to do science.
00:18:05.680
No, no, no, no, that's fine, but you've got, you've given me a kind of a history lesson
00:18:11.280
Look, I know this pen, with this, do you wake up and this pen explodes?
00:18:17.400
No, because there's uniformity and there's regularity, yes?
00:18:21.720
If that didn't happen, we can never do science.
00:18:24.040
That's why we look at quantum mechanics and we talk about the double-slip experiment, yet
00:18:28.500
there are things that happen in which we're like, whoa, that, you know, that doesn't make
00:18:32.040
So we use our rationality, irregularity, uniformity to do science.
00:18:42.920
It can be inherently moral, but I'm saying that, very simply, I've made an argument.
00:18:47.280
You guys haven't given me anything to disprove it.
00:18:50.320
I just want to come and say to me, no, Ali, the universe is necessary and independent because
00:18:59.600
You're saying that the universe needs something to...
00:19:06.140
Then I can come and talk to you about its attributes.
00:19:10.980
...as something that doesn't, isn't composed of parts...
00:19:22.320
And I'm saying, I'm saying that under these, your terms and your definition and the definitional
00:19:27.580
structure that we're using to construct the arguments on, under the definitions that we
00:19:32.940
have agreed, you are accurate in your assertion that the universe is composed of parts.
00:19:40.080
But what Alexei is ultimately saying is that this argument is archaic and does not reflect
00:19:45.920
the reality that the universe could have been, could have been, is not necessary, not
00:19:52.620
Because, no, because necessity, this is my point.
00:19:54.740
Then why do you say this is necessary by saying no?
00:20:03.200
It doesn't necessarily have to be contingent on something else.
00:20:07.880
I'm saying, under your definition, yes, that's true.
00:20:11.160
I'm saying, under the definition that we have agreed upon...
00:20:15.200
This is not the ultimate point, because, yes, the universe is composed of certain attributes.
00:20:24.380
So it immediately prevents it from being a necessary being.
00:20:27.500
If we're going to disagree, then we have to disagree on the definition.
00:20:30.920
But I'm saying that this definition is ultimately irrelevant because the universe could
00:20:35.880
conceivably have been caused from nothing, and it could, but not cause...
00:20:44.180
As I just demonstrated with this model, you need time and space in which you need stuff
00:20:50.180
You said, did you say that the universe can be composed of nothing?
00:21:03.300
...that we use to comprehend our perceptions of the natural world...
00:21:07.580
...then it seems inconceivable something can come out of nothing.
00:21:14.120
You listed the three different things, but this is not an impossibility.
00:21:19.080
Because outside of our logical framework, outside of the universe, it could be conceivable...
00:21:26.020
...that the process by which chemical reactions take place could be totally different.
00:21:32.780
I think this is more likely than positing a deity, and this is where we ultimately disagree.
00:21:45.760
Until now, you guys have not touched upon number one.
00:22:01.820
If I go to my math teacher and say, zero can equal one, he'll give me a backhand and
00:22:08.260
You are now inserting the most preposterous position, which is, it can come from nothing.
00:22:18.040
You have any scholarship supports that you can get nothing from...
00:22:20.720
I would simply ask you the same question about the necessary being.
00:22:26.920
Okay, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good.
00:22:30.220
First of all, we agree that you ascribe the necessary being to the universe.
00:22:34.680
We showed you guys that the universe is composed by pieces, can be any other way, so we realize
00:22:43.200
A necessary being that is independent, it is not composed by pieces, and it cannot be
00:22:48.240
Now, that is my argument, and you guys haven't said anything.
00:22:51.340
Now, do you accept that now a necessary being is required for the universe to...
00:22:58.840
Wait, no, no, no, because you have not answered my first question that I...
00:23:02.440
No, no, no, let me ask you a question that I began this debate with.
00:23:06.100
Okay, no, no, no, your definition of necessity, your definition of necessity is very carefully
00:23:13.060
No, according to your own interpretation of the world.
00:23:16.460
But if you look at what is necessity, why do humans need something, like, necessary?
00:23:26.360
...that you guys told now, I think it's been about 50...
00:23:34.160
I have not heard one counter-argument towards you.
00:23:37.560
You gave me an example about the Islamic history.
00:23:57.780
Then I said the universe cannot be independent because it is composed of pieces and it cannot
00:24:04.960
Then we acknowledge that the universe is actually dependent, not independent.
00:24:11.480
Then I said, then what is the universe dependent on?
00:24:17.740
I'm asking again, what is the universe dependent on?
00:24:22.260
Dependency is a moral argument, like I said at the beginning.
00:24:32.240
No, no, no, I'm telling you, I'm asking you a question.
00:24:38.200
With due respect, if it disappears, I don't care.
00:24:40.640
No, no, no, Ali, Ali, Ali, Ali, my point is necessity.
00:24:47.280
Because that is absolutely, because necessity is inherently a moral trait.
00:24:55.480
Necessity, it comes out of humanity's, yes, yes.
00:25:00.780
Necessity comes out of humanity's need to understand, to understand itself.
00:25:04.680
It doesn't, this idea that you connect parts and pieces of parts to necessity, that has
00:25:18.220
Does science not use regularity and uniformity to do studies?
00:25:23.120
Uniformity and regularity have nothing to do with pieces of the universe.
00:25:25.420
In order for you to do studies, you need to know that when I use a pen for an experiment,
00:25:36.080
We use our logic and certain laws that are in place to do science.
00:25:40.140
I'm giving you guys a logical argument, and you're here telling me, no, we reject your
00:25:54.340
Because the universe, you don't need a dependency.
00:25:57.200
When I'm ready to speak, I mean, it doesn't need to be a very important part.
00:26:03.740
You said the universe doesn't depend on anything, and you are the same person who said the universe
00:26:14.800
What is your definition of independence, my friend?
00:26:18.020
If he was Alexis, I would say, Alexis, listen, yeah?
00:26:22.940
Now that I've proved it's independent, you're saying, what's it, what's it, what's it?
00:26:34.820
Now when I say what's dependent on you, you've got nothing.
00:26:38.140
You proved it was dependent according to your understanding of what dependency is, which
00:26:41.540
I'm telling you is inherently immoral, and it comes out of your religious beliefs.
00:27:04.260
The idea is dependent on, it's inherently moral, and it's based in humanity's wanting
00:27:09.700
to understand something that it can't perceive.
00:27:26.760
By the same standard, so you're saying the universe...
00:27:33.280
I would ask you the same question about positing a deity, which you haven't answered yet.
00:27:38.640
Why is that unreasonable when it comes to a deity?
00:27:44.280
But you're thinking about this necessary deity.
00:27:52.620
I've given my definitions for a contingent thing.
00:27:55.200
I'll give you my definition for a necessary being.
00:28:21.240
There are dependent things within our universe.
00:28:25.680
So I said dependency is something that can be any other way.
00:28:28.680
It's composed of pieces and requires something else for its own existence.
00:28:33.600
I said, is the universe dependent or independent?
00:28:36.780
Then I said to him, it cannot be independent because it's composed of pieces and it can be
00:28:47.420
So, and then I said to them, since we agreed it's dependent, what does it depend on?
00:28:58.080
The atheists are terrified to say it can be God.
00:29:10.220
May I say, may I say, it's a pleasure, it's a pleasure debating.
00:29:15.100
It's a pleasure, it's a pleasure, it's a pleasure.
00:29:22.040
On one hand, the universe comes from nothing, but you still haven't asked me where it is
00:29:31.440
And I would say that, I would say this last thing.
00:29:39.480
My statement, my response to Ali is that necessity is an inherently, it's a moral construction.
00:29:45.800
Because where does the idea of necessity come from?
00:29:47.680
Where does it, where do you really, like when you wake up every day, when you think about
00:29:54.180
Why do you, because you believe it's necessary to your own existence.
00:29:57.140
That, what Ali's done is now, is now zoomed out and imposed out on the whole universe and
00:30:02.140
then put his own definition of what dependency is, which I don't agree with, I don't think
00:30:06.880
I think dependency is one of the things which you listed, which is the third thing, which
00:30:11.620
is it has to depend upon something, which is what he said.
00:30:15.920
This is why I said it's not dependent, it's independent.
00:30:18.440
It's got nothing to do with our understanding of logic, with our understanding of morality,
00:30:23.280
Because we're using our values, we're using our understanding of how to live our lives,
00:30:28.140
and imposing that upon a system that's inherently, can only be understood through science, through
00:30:32.560
physics, through these subjects which have nothing to do with necessity.
00:30:37.040
The big bang has nothing to do with the system.
00:30:45.880
I believe that the argument that the universe is dependable comes from the fact that you
00:30:53.160
look at the pieces and you say, well, this is dependent on something else, therefore
00:30:57.560
the entire universe must be dependent on something else, which is the fallacy of composition,
00:31:01.640
which is a fallacious argument, which I reject.
00:31:10.540
Okay, guys, close the statement, quickly, quickly.
00:31:15.440
I'm not coming, but my dear friends here would like to carry on the discussion.