All you are telling me is that the reality, which does exist, has a source. Am I right?
That is your bottom line. I'm saying attributes, and the plurality they exist,
has a source, and it is ultimately connected, always with the source. It is that source,
insofar as it's absolute... It is that source? It is. Are you saying this bottle is God now? Yeah,
we're not... I don't have a problem with you... You know when you... Look this is...
This is where the problem is. You keep using terms which go against you, actually. It doesn't Hashim.
Okay. When you use terms like God, for example, okay? Then you're saying everything is God.
No, because if I were to say it's contingent, that means something is contingent;
it has an ontological reality when a water bottle doesn't?
Okay good... Are water bottles ontological realities? Wait wait. You used the term "contingent."
Yeah, because he just used contingent. Okay, good. I was making... Is God contingent?
Is God contingent? Nothing is contingent in my worldview. Nothing is contingent?
No, everything is that being, ultimately. Okay, do you know contingent what it means?
I hope you don't have your own definition. Okay. Contingent is that something exists only
in connection or being held up, powered by this thing. No, no, it could have been another way.
Yeah. So, you're already contradicting yourself. You see? That's why I said every time you speak.
Yeah, yeah. You don't even realize when you contradict yourself. Because when you talk about 'contingent'...
Let's establish contingent. So, there's a necessary being and there's a contingent being
if you want to call it. So, It's separate from... Okay, let's use the term 'existence.' A necessary existence...
So, it's separate. So, whatever is... No, no, no. A necessary existence cannot be any other way,
A necessary existence exists by necessity. Necessarily. Necessarily, yeah.
Okay. That means it cannot be any other way. Okay. Okay? It's not dependent on anything else.
Yes. Whereas a contingent existence depends, has an explanation, sorry, a necessary being,
there's an additional addendum here. It doesn't have an explanation outside it.
Okay? It's self-sufficient, it's self-sufficient, independent, and couldn't have been any other way.
Whereas a contingent... To my view. Whereas a contingent being or contingent existence, it depends on... How? Some... Okay.
Did this bottle exist by itself?
The water bottle... I like the bottle. Yeah, by the way, I love it. Okay, so when you
talk about the water bottle, yeah, does it exist? By itself? No. Is it contingent? Yes.
Okay. It is not a necessary existence, right? The bottle... When we're talking about the attributes, this, this. No.
When I say bottle, I mean bottle. I don't know which bottle you are talking about.
Is the bottle God? You're not going to... You're not going to define... No, no, before we go to the God bit,
let's see, because I want to know whether you even understand the term contingent.
A necessary being. Yeah. So, a necessary being is actually the exact opposite of the contingent. I agree with this, yes.
So, is the bottle, in your worldview, is the bottle contingent or necessary? The thing is,
I told you, I don't even recognize the bottle as existing. Bro, let me make it simple for you.
So, you're saying the bottle doesn't exist now? Insofar that it has its own existence?
No. Bro, there's a clear answer. Where did it come from? If something in the bottle is necessary, it means
it couldn't have been another way. That means this bottle always existed. This bottle was made, yeah.
So, the fact that it was made, the fact that it had a beginning, therefore, it's contingent. When we're
talking about, when we're talking about the bottle, we're talking about this specific form.
What it is right now. Yes. And my claim, what it is right now, is just a certain form. But does it exist?
Yes. Okay. It exists insofar... Does it exist independently? No. Thank you. So, it's not...
So, then it is contingent. I agree with this, Hashim. But... You see how every time, every time you talk
about something, you contradict yourself without even realizing it. Let me tell you something. Even if you want to go down to
not the form, if you want to go down just the atoms or like a matter of it, whatever. The matter had
a beginning, and therefore it was another way. Therefore, it cannot be necessary. Therefore,
if you think God is a necessary existence, it can't be part of God. It can't be God. It can't be
any of them. Okay, when you're saying that's what it is, yes, I agree. But what is...
It's not what we are saying is, it's what you perceive as the bottle... What I perceive as the bottle, very true,
just like I perceive the sky to be blue. Does that mean... No, no, let's stick to the bottle.
Okay. Let's stick to the bottle. Okay. Just because I perceive... Is the bottle contingent?
I just said yes. It's contingent on being. So, if it is contingent... Yes. Reality.
It cannot be the being which is... Necessary. Yes. No. Bro, forget this contingent on being. Is it a contingent existence?
Yes or no? It has... It doesn't have... Philosophically, you know... It does not have a separate existence, no.
No, no, no. I am not... That's not what contingent means, bro. Contingent philosophy means it could have been something else.
It could have been another way. You know that bottle was a different form at one point, that matter did not exist at
one point; therefore, it was another way at some point. But it still existed, right?
No, it didn't exist. This bottle did not exist at one point.
Okay. That's if you're making the case that matter is not... Eternal. Matter is not eternal.
Yeah, it isn't. So... You are... If you're claiming matter is eternal, then you have to substantiate it. Yeah.
No, I'm not claiming that matter... You can't say then it's necessary. You can see that this is...
Okay. So, wait, wait. I am not saying the bottle is necessary. No, no. But you can't say it's...
You can't say that it's part of God or that... Why? I'm telling you why. Because if... Because God is not... Because God is
necessary. Another way, therefore, this cannot be part of that because this changed; this is
contingent. Okay. Contingent existence. So, in summary. Wait, wait. Let me summarize. God, by definition, is a necessary being who is
eternal. The bottle is contingent, not eternal. Simple. The thing is when we're talking about God,
in my case, it's not that God is a being, God is being itself. Okay, it doesn't matter;
it's still necessary. It's not contingent. But it never changes, so even... It's still necessary,
my friend. Even the thing... It is still... His existence is necessary, not contingent.
Necessary in compared to... Was there a point in time where God did not exist? No, obviously not. Okay cool.
Was there a point in time when this bottle did not exist? Insofar as what we're describing as the bottle, no.
We have always been describing it as a bottle. You just said that matter... You're not going to
argue matter not eternal. So, even in the not the form of the bottle, what this bottle is made up
from, there was a time where it did not exist; therefore, then... Insofar as the bottle, it
existed as being because it's always being It's always being. What is... Okay, can you define this being
thing? Because we're talking about contingent exists in philosophy. Yeah, I know.
Contingent existence. Necessary existence. This being business, you need to... This is like... That's fair enough.
That's fair enough. But I made my case already that
when we're talking about something like the fence, it...
What is it ultimately? What is it? What is it? What is it? We have told you it's matter. So, that's ultimately,
it's just matter. No, no. Ultimately, the fence is matter. Well, it's just matter. Contingent matter.
Do you think it is consciousness? I believe it's being. Is it consciousness? I believe it's being. No, but you see, now...
The reason you aren't using consciousness is because it doesn't apply to something like a fence.
Am I right? Because earlier you said the only reality is consciousness. Am I right? Yes, I did.
But I retracted. But now when I ask you about the fence, you're saying it's not
consciousness. But actually, why are you coming back to consciousness? Because you keep changing
your definition of the being. No, I retracted my statement from consciousness. Define the being to
him because he wasn't here earlier. Are you being? Bro, you can't ask me a question and ask you to define
something. Tell me. No... I cannot do it... Because... I cannot define it ultimately. I cannot define it.
No, I need you; you're using a term 'being.' I need you to define that term for me. It's been, it's
been a while. How's it going? It's all right. Bro, define the term 'being' because you keep using it,
and I don't know what it means. Okay, that's fine. Okay. So, when we're talking about a tree,
for example, is it, we can ask two questions: Is it and what is it? Yes? Does it exist? Or is it? No, no. Does it exist?
Yeah. The ontological question. Yeah. And then, what is it made up of? Maybe, we can ask that. I think that's contradiction
because then the first claim is the ontological... What it is made up of is an ontological question. Sure.
So, you're asking two questions, pretty similar to each other. Go on. All right. So, my claim is that
the very fact that it is, right? Whatever that is, it's being, because it exists
by nature, it's being. It cannot have any other ontological essence other than being
because it is. When I ask you to define being, you can't use being four or five times in the
definition. No, I cannot define it. Okay. That's your position. Then you need to know that you can't be arguing
for it. You can't even define it. How can you... I don't need to... Philosophically,
how can you expect other people to accept what's called positions...
No, I am not here to... This conversation... Okay, sure. Even if you wanna accept there is a position for yourself.
No, no, no. Let's not... My position doesn't ultimately come from philosophy or rational thought. But you're using philosophy.
No, to talk to Hashim, yeah. But...
I'm not here to prove anything to anyone. Hashim wanted to understand my view better. Okay.
And he tried to disprove it. That's it. I'm trying my best as much as I can with whatever I can.
Which is being, consciousness, and these are arbitrary words with ultimately trying to describe something
that cannot be described. Okay, do you, okay, can we go back to, okay, let's go back to the bottle.
Do you understand that? No, I understand that you're telling me that you had some sort
of experience that led you to a conclusion; however... This is irrelevant. What I am saying is the very fact that we're talking about
it right now, is not that I am trying to make a point. It was me explaining my beliefs to Hashim.
Yeah, yeah. I have no issue with that, but when you're talking... When you are having a conversation
about ontology and reality, you're trying,
at least even if it's for your own self, if not for others, you're at least trying to gain a heavier
conviction and being able to see that you're able to be rational and understand. Sure. Yes.
So, if Hashim... My question is... Yes, go on. If something exists, what it is fundamental ontology,
and is it separate to the ultimate ontological or you want to compare to monotheism?
Okay, so then let's go to the... We just showed you with the bottle, bro. The bottle, we just talked about it. You think that
God was always existing, correct? Yes. Okay, good. The bottle, forget the form, forget any of this,
because I have no issue with you telling me... But, that's what you're describing as the bottle, right?
No, no, no. I'm not. I am telling you even if you want to tell
me that the bottle is not the thing we see in front of us, it's the form,
all everything that the bottle was before this, I'm okay with all of that. If you wanna say...
You are not though. I am okay with that. No, because then, what we are saying is that the bottle always existed
insofar as its true ontological state.
Which is the necessary. No, the bottle was only and ever was a material thing. It's only...
It's a material thing. So, it doesn't matter if you want to talk to me about it, so couldn't
have existed pre-materiality. But the problem is, I'm an idealist. I don't, I don't give a matter an existence of its own.
I believe it's all mental. It's mental stuff. Okay. They don't
have an existence of their own. They derive their being from the ultimate being itself.
I don't see, again, you're using things... I don't have an issue with
you telling me matter... Things that are matter or things that exist derive their existence from
somewhere else. Yes, they're contingent, for their existence is contingent upon something
else. No problem with that because they're not necessary. But does that create a second existence?
A second type of existence? Like, you mean like, it's not the same as the one that
gave it existence, correct? But the very fact that something exists, yeah, must be the same.
The... It must be existence. There is no... Let me tell you...
I'll tell you why they must be because they don't even share the same, what's it called...
The qualities. I agree with that. If you agree that God always existed, which you, which you do, and I, you
agree that just even if you want to, I don't want to go beyond, just even in the material aspect,
the bottle did not always exist. Therefore, this bottle could have been another way. It was another
way, and it's a contingent existence, bro. It can't be a necessary existence. Automatically, it
cannot be lumped in with the necessary existence. Okay, when we're talking about the bottle again
and again, you're talking about a state of existence. No, we're talking about a thing. No
A tree, a bottle, whatever, a fence. They are all the same. These are states of existence. They are IN a state of existence
not... They are themselves something. Existence. No, not just existence. How can you, how can you say that something that exists is not existence?
No, it's not existence
in all of existence, because the bottle does not encompass everything else, the bottle encompass
the existence of the bottle. Existence. It exists. Okay, but there was a point where that bottle did not exist
and God existed. Insofar as the bottle. Okay, no. The matter of the bottle exists. That's fine. Okay, so what I'm saying,
so there was a point where the matter of the bottle did not exist, and there was existence. Okay.
Can I put it, the form that existence is taking right now is dependent on existence,
but its existence throughout. Bro, listen to me, it's very simple, you just, you don't want to...
I don't know why you're trying to, you just want it... Because I don't... Force the marriage between
the two, there's no need. There's no... I'm not, I'm, there is no second ontology. I mean, you're
claiming that but I'm trying to have you, I know, I'm trying to get you to substantiate it a little bit.
That's fine and it's okay. But...
If God is the only and necessary being, right, any other being
ultimately is illusory in... Insofar as they having their
own existence, because the only existence that exists is God's existence. No, look, look,
look, look, there was a point where all of matter did not exist, and God existed, correct?
I still believe God exists right now. Yeah, of course. I'm telling you, there was a point before material
existence where God existed, and material did not exist, correct? So, if that's the case,
then you cannot say that, what's it called, the bottle is attached to, and is the same kind
of existence that God is, because it didn't exist at one point. It is, yeah, you can't.
It is existence. You can't say that. There was a point where nothing about that bottle existed,
so there was not part... Their existence exist. Not in the same way that you're talking about. That's what I'm
trying to tell you, but you need to just be clear with your terms, and you yourself are
saying... That's fair enough. So, my advice to you is, sorry, my advice, sorry, my apologies, my advice is,
you need to review your terms, and you need to come with, like... That's fair enough. And you need to come with
strict terms. I can work on that. But, the problem is, right, it's like, this distinction between being and something that has being but
it's different in a very, by the terms of being. Bro, I'm using philosophy to clearly
show you that there is a huge difference between the two. I don't... The burden is on you to disprove
that difference... No, not the form. There's a huge difference. There is... In... There's necessary existences,
contingent existences, impossible existences. I'm showing you that the bottle is a clear and obvious
provable contingent existence. Are they all existence, though? No. Okay. They are all given the name 'existence' to them. Bro, but that's not
the same thing. But that's... That's like saying all illnesses are the same because they're all
illnesses. You're making a category error. You're not comparing them categorically. You're
comparing them ontologically. Okay, I'm not saying you could say that, like... Do you see? Do you see?
No, no, no. These two jackets are the same. They are jackets.
Yeah. You can grant that, yes? Yeah. But you're saying way more than that. You're
saying it's the same. Same insofar as jackets. No, no, no, no. Different...
Maybe different colour, different zip or... These are fine. Is the existence of God different to the bottle?
No. Okay, so you're saying the same, bro. That's the problem. You see what I mean? You don't mean
what you're saying. The bottle... You don't mean what you're saying, bro. Stop it... I know... With
the jacket stuff. What I mean, look, what I mean is the bottle exists, God exists. Okay,
do they exist in different ways, and is their existence the same? The existence, the fact that they exist is the same.
The very fact that they exist, is the same. They exist in different forms. God exists in a formless way.
A bottle... Just make it simple. Is the bottle and God, do they share the same existence? They share
the same being. Okay, so then you're contradicting yourself with the jacket analogy, and you're also
causing problems for you with regards to... I already showed you the contingent type of
existence is completely different. I see the contradictions. I'm gonna be honest. Good, Alhamdulillah.
I see the contradictions. But again, this discussion in the beginning didn't start out like this. No issues.
It's fine. I've been content with the fact that... I appreciate the sincerity and honesty. But I'll
say to you, like, come back with, or actually mull it over, watch the thing, re-listen to yourself,
re-listen to what brother Hashim said, listen to what I said. And then, by the way, my name is Ismail.
Ismail. What's your name? Rafael. You have really nice eyes. Oh, appreciate it. The Sunlight... Appreciate it. Thank you.
But um, so, inshaAllah come back with, like, your terms, rehashed and... Where are you from?
I am Syrian and Spanish. But I am Canadian. Me too. No way. I was raised in Canada. In Toronto.
Okay, cool, cool. MashaAllah. Cool. So, bro come back and let's have the conversation with all the rehashed...
Did you read the Ibn Arabi? No, not yet. But I am doing a lot of Islamic philosophy stuff.
Look into...I have read some of... Some stuff... Look into the heretic claims. Look what you are saying.
It's gonna be much clearer than me. Ibn Arabi says something along the lines of what I am trying to say is that the... That...
God exists, not insofar as the... Before... Before we get into this, before we get into this, rehash the
terms, re-watch the footage. Then come with new... Because you said you found contradictions. Okay,
look through those contradictions... Whatever. I don't they are contradictions that can be solved.
Okay, but listen, listen. You want to, at least for me, I don't want to...
I always try to not hold contradictory views, and if I find contradictions within my views,
I look to solve them. And if I can't solve them, I, therefore, start looking at changing the
views drastically to the views that do not have that. However... My view isn't based on... I understand
that. You're saying it's... Yeah, but that's the thing. It's much more experiential. Now,
I think that, obviously, I'm a Muslim, and I think the Islamic worldview matches up your
experience with your mind, with your rationale. So, the point is, go rehash it over. See if you can come back with some real definitions and stuff
and if you can't, bro, give what we're saying a real thought and come back and talk. Okay.
Khalas? InshaAllah. It was good meeting you, bro. Nice to meet you. Yallah.
Salam Alaikum. Salam Alaikum everybody.