Debate Video: Islam or Atheism - Which is More Rational? Hamza Andreas Tzortzis and Dr. Brendan Larvor

8 comments:

Abu Maryam said...

In the conclusion of this debate, it is quite ironic that Dr Larvor alleges "selective deafness" towards brother Hamza. Yet it is he, Dr Larvor ,who is deaf, not selectively, but totally. He is is deaf in the sense that he sat there and has NOT heard the comprehensive philosophical proofs for God’s existence , yet he could not provide plausible proofs to counter them and win his argument for Atheism. This was pointed out by brother Hamza in his close-off speech.

He is also blind - he cannot 'see' the universe is a product of intelligent design. An analogy here - let's say, he saw a black and white football outside in the woodlands, in the midst of some black and white cows. Now let's say brother Hamza explained to him – hey doc, this ball got here through a process of evolution with a bit of mutation, it turned one of the cow's testicle very big, which fell off and became this black and white size 5 football with a made of china stamp on it!! He would not accept this ridiculous conclusion! Yet, if brother Hamza explained something, which is far more complex, intricate and mind boggling - the ball that we call earth - it came into existence in a similar fashion through randomness (or it just popped out from what they say is an eternal universe, or eternal space vacuum, or whatever!) and eventually evolution initiated the existence, what we call 'life' - he is the one that readily accepts and signs up to such an irrational scenario - he does not find anything wrong with it. Yet, applying the same logic to finding this black and white ball scenario, he will find it absurd, laughable and irrational rejecting it completely without second thoughts!

7 February 2011 22:57
Abu Maryam said...

...Secondly, Dr Larvor has contention in accepting an external or supernatural force embedding us with, or asking us to have certain morals and ethics. Philosophically this is not an impossibility, but a possibility and more plausible. Why can't an external force impart morals and ethics into us (by our innate disposition and/or through directives i.e. revelation)? An analogy would be a computer programmer programming a character or robot/character possessing advanced thinking and with limited morals and ethics (for example, Microsoft with their Project Natal, for the Xbox Kinect, have done this with to some degree with this character called Milo , see this… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPIbGnBQcJY).

I see morals and ethics from God as directives which enhance our spiritual character towards fine-tuning us into being the best possible human beings. We have default moral values that we are born with (or the atheists may claim - evolved with), for example, we don’t need anyone to tell us that lying is bad. However, by following God’s directives and his moral codes, we become better human beings. This is in the similar manner of our physical being – we don’t need any one to tell us that exercising makes us physically fit. But to know which exercises make us the fittest and thus best physical shape - we have to go and speak to the experts - who know how the physiology of the body works and can advise on accordingly.

The problem with Atheists is that they most likely accept and know that there is a ‘cause’ of the universe, however they are scared in admitting and acknowledge this reality - because it will logically follow that a creator exists and the only plausible answer that best fits and pinpoints it, is - GOD! This is why they contrive absurd diversionary tactics and hypothesise the world might have been created by a ‘flying spaghetti monster’ and the ‘imaginary friend’ that you cannot prove exists ( akin to to the one your child talks to when playing) or their ‘joker card’ the mutli-verse theory where so many random worlds exist and it is inevitable that our world eventually will pop into existence as the way it is – perfect and life permitting!

They ultimate fallacy of the atheist is that they think there must physical or sensory proof for the existence for everything, i.e. through the five senses, even for God. They fail to accept, that in the of such evidence ,we can still prove things exist rationally and metaphysically using other branches of knowledge.

7 February 2011 22:58
Alnakkas said...

Proud of you Hamza, you outdone him in all fields.

11 February 2011 16:58
Fahim said...

Assalamulaikum,

Excellent debate brother Hamza. The doctor raised a few interesting points, however, as typical of Atheists he dodged your primary philosophical arguments.

Abu Maryam raised some great points too. Atheists fail to understand that the quantum vacuum they cite as the "cause" of this universe, also follows certain patterns and laws. What they fail to understand is, just because we cannot yet map out these patterns, does not mean that they don't exist. It's just that our ability to measure things is limited by quantum mechanics.

Even in a basic gr. 12 physics course, one studies Thomas Young's double slit experiment where attempting to observe the behaviour of a particle collapsed its wave function. This was because the measuring instruments released heat/light energy and influenced the environment at the quantum level.

Also, they fail to understand that causality doesn't have to be strictly linear and sequential: X causes Y which causes Z. We already know that Allah simply says "Be! And it is!" Also, Allah has already predestined us onto a fixed path. This means that the future does in fact exist in His knowledge. In fact, a professor of physics has conducted a number of experiments which have confirmed that at the quantum level, measurements done in the future influence the present. There was an article about this in Discover Magazine.

The most fundamental question in philosophy still stands: why is there something as opposed to nothing? This quantum vacuum clearly is something, and not "nothing" as some misleadingly state. Is it eternal? It involves the occurrence of events. So, even if many of these events occur simultaneously, that fact that there are changes, indicates some dimension of time. If this vacuum was eternal, would it not run into the problem of the infinite regress to?

16 February 2011 01:17
Fahim said...

In fact, for simplicity's sake, we could just add it to the universe (i.e. the sum/unity of all things other than Allah). Just as Abu Maryam has stated, many Atheists have already accepted that there is some "eternal something".

However, now they're trying to squeeze past accepting God by contending that it could be mechanical! How interesting, they finally accept something Atheists all through out history have denied, while Theists have accepted it. Yet, they're still unwilling to shift their position? the fact is, many of these so-called "free-thinkers" aren't free in their thinking at all. They're full of bias, and at times even pride. The only success I've ever had with an Atheist is with those who are personal friends; much of that is probably due to our friendship as opposed to strictly rationality.

Further, just as brother Abu Maryan has stated, the Qur'an is a guide which imparts us with the specific details we need to become better human beings. His exercising analogy was quite clever! So, sure truth may coresspond to reality, however, how would we derive specific moral truths in the absence of revelation?

Even if we had some innate sense that such and such is a proper practice (ex. hijab [as in the veil]), we would need revelation to back up our feelings. Otherwise, without God it comes down to subjectivity. And if one was to argue that humans or even the universe has moral truths embedded into its very being, I would ask how a mechanical cause would be capable of doing this.

I would also ask how these moral truths would be derived.

Anyways, those are just my thoughts. Salaam!

16 February 2011 01:21
Anonymouse said...

@ Fahim

Brother, you appear to know alot about physics. Start a blog or something! Many muslims are confused about this kind of stuff, especially the whole science vs islam thing. It'd be good dawah on your part

Salam Alaikum

20 February 2011 23:48
irfan said...

There is no science vs Islam. There never was. There never is. There never will be. It is a atheist setup to make a split between religion and science and allow atheist philosophy to be a over-lordship on science.

Quantum Mechanics, that atheist love to blindly put forth to tackle the cosmological argument, is in no way opposed. The one who who uses it, infact, only proves that he has no clue of the cosmological argument.

QM cannot be the answer,

- because QM would exist only if the universe would exist in the first place.

- Secondly, QM does not say nothing creates something or that there is no cause. It only says the behavior is random since the determined cause and path is unknown and unascertainable.

- Thirdly, QM is about observing the cause. The cosmological argument is not about observation but about logical/rational necessity. Whether the cause is observed or not does not effect the argument. Remember, Muslims are occasionalist and believe all causes are in reality from God and the observed natural causes are only co-relations that Allah determined.

Now lets turn QM observations into a argument for God. You can call it the "Erfanic Cosmological Argument" if you like. lol. Here:

1) From QM findings, nature/universe is random at it micro/sub-atomic level. While the same nature is determined at its macro level.

2) This is due to chance, physical necessity or design.

3) It cannot be chance, as chance would only give randomness and cannot explain the determined nature at macro level.

4) It cannot be physical necessity as "physical" itself has the same issue of randomness and determination at its micro and macro level; which is what the argument is trying to explain in the first place. Moreover, physical necessity cannot explain randomness.

5) Hence, It has to be a design from beyond nature (i.e beyond universe) that causes the nature that behaves random at its micro level to behave determined at its macro level.


Note: That randomness observed according to QM is not the same as "chaos". In chaos, only the initial point is random, while the path can be traced if the initial point is known. While in random, both initial point and path is random and indeterminable.

10 March 2011 09:19
Ahmed said...

If the atheist propose a "Eternal space", it is refuted in two ways:

1) Let the atheist define space. For space, like time, is a concept and has no self existence. Just as time is dependent on changes, space is dependent on bodies. Technically, space is the void occupied by bodies. Based on the Islamic principle of determination, bodies require a determiner. Therefore space cannot be eternal. Hence the proposed "Eternal space" is self contradictory and has no existence.

2) Even if we suppose a Eternal timeless space or nature existed, it cannot be the cause. Because if the cause is natural, then the sufficient and necessary conditions to bring about the effect would be present from Eternity. And that would imply that our universe itself was Eternal. But it is not. Our Universe did have a beginning, say 13.7mya. Therefore the cause cannot be a timeless natural cause.
Instead, the cause can only be a timeless "Will" that "determined" the universe would come to existence 13.7mya.

And all this was addressed by our mutakallims ages ago.

wa salaam
Ibn Ismail

24 March 2011 06:17

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)