The BIG Debates presents the university debate of the year: Is the Belief in Allah Rational?
The renowned physicist Stephen Hawking recently argued that there is no need for God to fill the gap in our scientific knowledge. His statements provoked a lot of responses, and they reasserted the popular idea that the concept of God is just a fairy tale. In this light what good reasons do religious people have for holding on to their beliefs, especially the belief in God?
Is the Islamic conception of God more reasonable? Or are all conceptions of God doomed to fail under intellectual scrutiny?
Don't miss this debate where the Chair of the Humanist's Philosophers Group and Best-selling Author Peter Cave takes his revenge on Hamza Andreas Tzortzis from their last exciting and all-thrills debate "Can We Live Better Lives Without Religion?"
Don't miss this debate where the Chair of the Humanist's Philosophers Group and Best-selling Author Peter Cave takes his revenge on Hamza Andreas Tzortzis from their last exciting and all-thrills debate "Can We Live Better Lives Without Religion?"
Register: To register your free seat for the debate please email info@thebigdebates.com, http://www.thebigdebates.com
Date & Time: 4th November 2010, 6pm
Venue: University College London, Harrie Massey Lecture Theatre, 25 Gordon Street, London WC1H 0AY
Facebook Event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=167077646637178
Date & Time: 4th November 2010, 6pm
Venue: University College London, Harrie Massey Lecture Theatre, 25 Gordon Street, London WC1H 0AY
Facebook Event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=167077646637178
Posts
5 comments:
This must be interesting. This time the topic is more specific as it should be and hopefully Peter Cave would come with his homework done.
God is an instrument of good government, whether or not you believe in His actual living existence beyond a mere concept.
Assalamu alaikum brother hamza,
I hope you do read this message. With regards to criticizing liberalism and secularism, there is this late egyptian author abdul wahab el mesery, may ALLAH(swt) have mercy on his soul, who is well known for authoring books that systematically criticize liberalism and points out several of its destructive factors. He is a well known world wide author, you might find some english translations of his books. I really hope you look at his works.
Salamu alaikum
Hamza,
What do you think of this argument: In an infinite number of universes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster that Dawkins talks about must exist in at least one of them.
Therefore, Dawkins must believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Well what is Atheism?
Atheism is the ontological claim that a transcendent unlimited, independent being i.e. God does NOT exist. This is opposed to a theist, who conversely makes the claim that a Creator DOES exist. It is important here to remember that both positions are making a knowledge claim, taking a positive intellectual position on the existence/non-existence of a thing. This is different from an Agnostic who “sits on the fence” so-to speak and believes that Creator may or may not exist and that the mind is unable to ever really know.
An example of this in more simplified terms are two people debating over who messed up the bathroom. Person A says “After looking at all the water spilled all over the floor, the unflushed toilet, no soap and empty paper towel box, I can rationally conclude that this was done by someone who exists even though I have never seen the person” (probably someone you know unfortunately). Person B says, “No way! You're deluded. You never saw this boogie man or woman. Might as well say the tooth fairy did it. Show me some physical evidence that someone clogged this toilet and did not flush it or bother to tell anyone. Since you cannot show me tangible evidence, the person you are referring to does NOT exist.” The moral of this crappy story (no pun intended) is that both people are taking a position on the existence or non-existence of a thing. Therefore both need evidence.
Author: Imran Hasan
Post a Comment