Debate Hamza vs Krauss
Transcript/Notes of the audio file
0:00 Big questions by moderator
5:00 Greeting Hamza, will use origins,
Koran
6:45 Kalam, infinite,
8:45 Al-Ghazali
argued, since an infinite regress of time was impossible, time had a beginning
and therefore, the universe is finite! Universe created from 1 nothing, 2
itself, 3 create,4 god as dichotomy , not allah, but atheists leap of faith, we
leave that to the atheists
14:00 god’s
attributes
15:10 Occam’s
razor ("Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily", "If you
have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the
simplest until more evidence comes along", "The simplest explanation
for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated
explanations", "If you have two equally likely solutions to a
problem, choose the simplest”, "The explanation requiring the fewest
assumptions is most likely to be correct." ) But Dr. Krauss does not
understand Occam’s razor, strawman misconstrue in the Kraussian fashion
16:00 Koran
says god is creator, one and transcendent (One and Only, Eternal, Absolute,
begetteth not, nor is He begotten, none comparable unto Him), transcendent
would make it necessary for a god, but there are several interpretations,
invalidating the concept. [1]
Also, can light on this planet with a wavelength between 620 and 740 nanometers
appear the same as green to us, can a bachelor be married or can Italy be north
of Sweden? No. There are some things which are impossible for a god or a single
god at least.
16:25 I want a
nuanced discussion. Childish. Atheist cliché.
17:00 I am
nothing compared to him - Krauss: that’s
true, Hamza miffed. Does not understand the point of nothing, does not see that
this is a possibility (like Gandishapur), Krauss intellectually challenged
19:00 Perception
and causes
20:15 Koran
20:20 1. “some
say” it is an imposing and intrusive, form cannot define contents,
inimitability is lame, wrong and impossible. 2. Miracle. Believes a stick can
be snake
25:20 lies,
claims all attempts have failed
26:30 challenge
premisses of Koran “and I hope Prof Krauss can do that”
26:35 Shakespeare,
Hamza decides, is not good enough, shallow contention, not unique enough
27:26 Rational
deduction, authoritative statements, prof x prof y, nuanced discussion with
Krauss
29:00
Moderator
now says that Prof Krauss should respond “come back”, what about his opening as
was presented in the beginning?
Krauss
31:00 I will
not offend you personally when I offend your ideas, thanks organisers for
adjusting personal rights to the 21st century
34:00 Islam is
nothing special, atheism is not a belief system or religion, but common sense
37:00 education
vs debate, chat vs debate, deductive is irrational, bottom-up is sensible, inconceivable happens all the time
41:00 speak
Arabic? No. Perhaps. What an idiotic response.
42:00 do you
know Pi? Facetious answer: No, I don’t know anything. Krauss: I’ll demonstrate
that. Pi has an infinite number of decimals
43:30 demonstrates
Hamza’s ignorance of infinites,
45:00 Rectifies
Hamza’s mistake with Occam’s Razor
46:00 define
cause. Hamza is now helpless. Don’t want to do you that favour. Shows Hamza his
own inability to define cause and that he uses what he rejects: infinity
49:00 cosmology
basics, t=0, all religious books are similar and make no sense, ridiculous
51:40 History
of mankind without religions? Then religion in caves or whatever. Hell
53:30 woman
has revelation and drowns her children
54:00 sharia?
Blasphemy punishable? Hamza starts rambling
& whining. Homosezual sex does not even happen where you are from. (clap
clap) Islam based on knowledge of people who didn’t even know how the world
works.
Mod
Hamza
59:00 all was red herring, rhetoric with crap (frantic applause)
Kraussian
fashion, wiggle audience, make a hoohaa
Hamza
nearly starts crying! He deplores the lack of format, lacking any degree of
flexibility when Krauss goes into chat mode. He questions whether that is
tolerance. He again harps on the
segregation of genders in the beginning, it seems he really ran out of
arguments.
1:00:15 what’s
the matter with you? Krauss’ knowledge of Islam is based on FoxNews narrative,
which he will expose. (frantic applause)
1:01:45 Usual
Hamza: claim something stupid and if you don’t react it is true. He accuses
Krauss of addressing one of his points, the infinite
1:03:10 your
proposition, FoxNews by the way, you misconstrued what Occam’s Razor is
1:04:00 We have a
very nuanced theology, Sir. Sure, if you don’t believe you go to hell, incredibly nuanced. Hamza is lost and now
starts preaching and begging
1:04:50 Krauss
asked him a question re homosexuality and Hamza calls it: putting words in my
mouth. That’s not nice
1:06:40 still
looking for counter points. What? We respect you in some paradoxical way.
FoxNews
1:07:50 asks
whether he has a book on Shariah law. Atheist worldview. Forgets or ignores that
Krauss asks. So he suggests one should ask and when one does ask it’s also
wrong. (frantic applause) Double standards?
1:08:55 why is
incest wrong? It’s not clear to me that it’s wrong. (gasps and laughter) There
are 2 reasons why incest is wrong; a societal and a physiological one. Hamza:
yes. Question by Krauss: is there something absolutely morally wrong with that?
1:10:20 Would I
recommend it? No. Would I listen to the arguments if they were rational? Maybe.
But just a few minutes ago Hamza said the same about homosexuals. Double
standards?
1:12:xx again
accuses Krauss of not addressing his points, when he clearly did. Hamza again
demonstrates his inability to grasp simple concepts when ignoring the dimension
of time.
1:13:00 Krauss
puts Hamza on the spot asking him what the nothing Krauss’ book is and Hamza is
unable to explain and just mumbles and stutters, complains and whines that Krauss took his time.
Mod
Krauss
1:14:00 continues
discussion. Deplores the claimed tolerance.
God in Islam tortures eternally for non-belief. God is a creep
1:17:00 origin of
Koran, example of Lot’s daughters, punishment
1:18:20 let me
teach you science, principles of theories, universe can be but not necessarily
and this is not in your book
1:22:00 stops
Mod
1:22:22 If you
would have been attentative to my argument
1:22:30 Hamza
goes off on a tangent, insisting he said a chapter and not some words. So what?
Does he decide what the Koran asks for? The prof delivered what is asked. Many
have. And now the prof puts his finger into the wound: what does “like it” mean
and who is the judge. Hamza fumbles and drops the ball
1:24:00 accuses
Krauss of an argument he makes in the book which Hamza does not understand.
Hamza now turns entire sentences on their head because he has not been able to
make a single convincing argument.
1:28:30 Hamza
still does not understand the concept of time. He mistakes empirical
observation and a bottom-up approach with uncertainty. Krauss schools him yet
again by telling him that science can’t provide certainty but is able to show
when something is wrong.
1:29:00 Krauss
drills down into perception and interpretation and asks Hamza whether he
believes the moon was split. Hamza aborts and starts babbling nonsense,
claiming the interpretations of the Koran are fixed, which is anything between
a blatant lie and utter, total nonsense.
1:31:20 Throws
out the word or concept of soul and self and when Krauss asks for a definition
gets lost. Let’s be nuanced and not reductionist. When Krauss insists on a definition,
Hamza just says: why don’t you die and find out? What an impertinent brat.
(Frantic applause). Hamza does not make any argumenta and throws out some
meaningless, undefined words and then insults the professor and his fan-boys
applaud. THAT is why some Muslims are considered so backwards.
1:32:50 nuanced about narratives from religion. Waffles without contents. Krauss asks why Hamza is not covered in a
bag. Hamza claims that Krauss rationalises Incest and has no moral high ground,
making it sound like a crime. (frantic
shouts and applause). And suddenly, Krauss is demoted to Mr. Krauss.
1:35:00 Krauss
clarifies that he does nor question whether Islam or atheism is moral but
whether it makes sense.
1:36:30 argument
about what it says in Krauss’ book.
Krauss ads that if it said what Hamza claims it said he, Krauss, would
be wrong. (frantic applause because the
people in the audience did not grasp what was said and only heard the words “I
was wrong”) When Hamza starts gloating Krauss shows him what it really says.
Does Hamza apologise? Not a chance.
1:39:00 Hamza:
did the Universe start a finite time ago? Krauss agrees, not realising that
Hamza does not understand the difference between the Universe inflating and the
trigger of that inflation. The same as abiogenesis is not the same as
evolution.
1:40:55 Hamza
still does not want to understand or fails to understand or is unable to
understand the principles of deductive and inductive reasoning or scientific
methodology and that neither produces certainty. He does not understand that
his argument has been killed by his premiss having been killed.
Mod
Q&A
1:43:05 Nothing
is something. Nothing in physics is the absence of something. So: what is
something? He explains it and the questioner does not understand, so even the
audience asks to move on.
1:47:26 If the
Koran is so scientifically inclined, where is the Islamic LHC? Hamza concedes
the Koran is vague and ambiguous. He now goes back to the stance that the
language is miraculously consistent and not scientifically correct and agrees
he may be right or wrong.
1:51:35 How can
an atheist rationally defend their belief? Not understanding that atheism is a
lack of a belief and does not have anything in common with science.
1:54:44 Why
doesn’t Hamza use the opportunity and verify the so-called scientific miracles
regarding cosmology? Hamza folds, saying he does not use scientific arguments.
Couldn’t
understand the arguments
1:58:27 couldn’t
make out question. Hamza responds that an inductive argument is empirical by
nature.
Krauss
jumps in: how do you know whether your deductive premisses are valid if you
don’t test them? Hamza has to resort to the spiritual special pleading: through
conceptual, metaphysical, philosophical realms.
Hamza
completely knocks himself out now, by claiming that science can only come up
with inductive methods to establish reality, which I completely false and that
the argument itself is inductive and refutes itself (this nonsense is met with
enthusiastic applause).
2:01:00 rattles
off scientism logical positivism as though they meant something. Hamza
seriously says that since science can’t “prove” itself it is scientism. Science
is flawed because I can’t prove mathematical, moral, historical or ontological
truths. And a hammer is flawed because it can’t measure voltage.
2:02:00 When
Krauss protests, Hamza even goes one further and now claims that testimony is a
source of knowledge. Dr. Professor
Krauss is floored by this nonsensical and completely false claim. Hamza states
that evolution is based on testimony, which is greeted with raucous applause.
Why? Nobody knows. Hamza simply does not
understand that it there is the possibility for anyone to repeat the
experiments and verify existing data. It is not a secret and can be falsifiable.
But Hamza is too primitive and uneducated to realise this.
2:04:22 a woman
is given the final question, but only manages to polemicize the seating
arrangement in the venue. What a douche.
I believe everybody has a right to sit where they want to
and there has been some misunderstanding.
…. Nobody imposed segregation on him. He was allowed with the ladies at
the back, and was also allowed to sit at the front … would it be appropriate too for him to join
me at my table too. I am vertically
offended by his disrespect for my family.
Summary
2:07:00 Krauss
qualifies his approach as educator, again saying he did not intend to insult or
offend, but stimulate thought
2:09:11 Hamza
first and foremost thinks his empirical and inductive doubts manage to persuade
or sway anyone. He still thinks he
delivered sound arguments and refuses to accept he was refuted in every way.
2:12:59 end
No comments:
Post a Comment