DEBATE: Islam or Atheism Which makes more sense?


Islam or Atheism – Which Makes More Sense?

This debate sees Professor Lawrence M. Krauss, renowned cosmologist and Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, writer and lecturer explore these two world views that appear at odds with each other yet both claim to be based on reason and rationale.

This is no ordinary ‘Atheism vs. Theism’ debate, rather it is the opportunity for you to understand the intellectual foundations of Islam and Atheism and discover for yourself which is more rational.

[fbcomments width=”550″]

Comments (10)

  1. The problem with Hamza’s argument at the beginning is, If God is eternal and his will is eternal then an infinite amount of time would pass before he decided, or ‘chose’ to create a universe… which, according to Hamza, would never happen.

      • If your God is outside the version of space/time that we inhabit then he is in either an environment with its own version of space/time or a non-temporal environment. If the former, then either there was a beginning to that time-line (one might wonder what occurred before that beginning) or an infinite amount of time has passed for your God. If the latter, then nothing can change – change can occur only if the environment is temporal. Take your pick, unless you have another alternative that you can explain.

  2. 1;58;00. Hamza -“You can have a deductive argument that whose premises rest on induction.”
    Another problem with Hamza’s deductive argument is that some of his premises are inductive and so cannot be absolutely true; therefore, his conclusion cannot be 100% true. His complaint about induction being metaphysical and “crude” could equally well be applied to deduction. I agree with Krauss: “Deductive arguments don’t work when we want to learn about how the world works.”

    • Krauss said in his book deduction doesn’t work but clearly mathematics is based on deduction that doesn’t make any sense at all is that science????? god thank you brother hamza really you have showed the true face of atheism (i’m an ex-atheist)

      • Science uses mathematics but it is does not generate new knowledge deductively. It has to test the truth of its propositions against how the world works and so it is an inductive enterprise. Future discoveries or evidence could render certain scientific statements false. This doesn’t happen in deductive arguments or mathematics. Pythagoras’ theorem is true for all time–independent of any new evidence or discovery about the world. That’s why Krauss concludes that deductive arguments (as the ones Hamza uses) don’t work when we want to know how Nature works… or the origin of the universe for that matter. We have to go out and empirically test our hypotheses, look for confirming or disconfirming evidence. So the attempt to prove something about the world using strictly logic will fail. Hamza’s problem with inductive arguments is rather contradictory since he himself uses inductive premises in his so-called argument.

        All these arguments proving God’s existence are the ontological argument for God’s existence and it has a long history. None have been convincing–including Hamza’s argument.

        • I know hamza uesthis his argument but Kruse words doesn’t make any sense sense he sided deductive doesn’t work and mathematics is all about deduction that means he refuse mathematics that is one of the resons why he lost the debate

        • I think one of the most interesting question that no one is asking the atheist is
          how exactly would science ever be able to prove existence of God ? Do
          scientists expect to have empirical scientific evidence to this effect,
          well then good luck with running tests on The Creator !!!. A finite
          creation trying to measure The Infinite Creator using the yardstick of
          measurement it has devised from the understanding of the creation itself
          (with an assumption that that measurement will hold good EVEN FOR THE
          CREATOR) …. absurdly genius, no, not really, stubbornly proud, perhaps or maybe
          plain and simple irrational and illogical, aha u don’t need a genius to
          figure that one , just some common sense (oh yes, now I remember — the
          “sense” that is not so common ).

          • My friend, the burden of proof is does not lie with the scientists, it lies with the religious who claim to know of God. The scientists don’t care about God, the religious do. So I say again the religious need to prove God is real for they are the ones who have the most to lose when they come to the realization God does not in fact exist.

  3. lol is that really all you got from the debate? How about the blatant straw-man arguments and red-herrings?; ‘Islam is just like every other religion, it’s not special’, ‘Look…I knew you was going to bring the same old arguments and nothing new’ Not to mention the obvious arrogance. The man did not address a single, argument all he did was boast about his knowledge of science (a field Hamzah clearly stated wasn’t his specialty in the beginning of the debate), threw a fit like a 12-year old (‘I’m not going to counter your arguments, they are RUBBISH”) and made a complete mockery of himself. What a shame. And here I was, hoping for a good, thought-provoking discussion. I guess some people find it hard to be sincere.

Comments are closed.