Debate: Does God Exist? Hamza Tzortzis vs. Humanist

[Maiwand]

Debate: Does God Exist? Hamza Tzortzis vs. Humanist

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

I would love to hear someone here, from among Atheist members, to counter the arguments made by the Muslim speaker Hamza Tzortzis; unfortunately the Humanist speak failed to address any of his arguments.

The arguments that I am referring to are within first 30 minutes of the video, so you don't have to listen to the whole clip.

[kakargirl]

actually even atheist scientists are reverting to islam after science has prooved that allah swt exists and that the quran is the true book of allah swt the newest one to convert is a czech scientist who was a atheist islam will prevail inshallah

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

What I find amazing that in the end, when discussing with those who don't believe in the existence of God, when all arguments fail, the question is where is God, show me God. I can't see Him, therefore He does not exist. This is a logical fallacy at its best.

I say, leave His visibility aside and let us discuss how things work. Why do they work they way they do, and why are we trying to unravel these phenomena in trying to understand how they function. Why do we develop apparatuses in our search, if things were not set in their course by God. How is it possible that our apparatus are designed to look for patterns, when everything came about by chance? How can change develop a pattern? Look at a fly and look at a bee.

[kakargirl]

They just found out about golden ratio 1.618 over 50 to 60 years ago they've just found out that the kabba was constructed on this ratio thousands of years ago and also that allah swt has created all his wonderful things on this ratio the perfect number and the ones that do find out this they revert to islam.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Could you please elaborate on this. Any links?

Jazakallah khairan!

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

I just finished watching the whole video, I hope that those who can afford the time to also watch it. I am not being biased, but I like the arguments presented by Hamza Tzortzis. I would love to have someone counter his arguments, just in order to see what those arguments would be. I ask for this because I don't believe that the Humanist was well versed in defending his position.

[kakargirl]

Could you please elaborate on this. Any links?

Jazakallah khairan!

yes type into google golden ratio in islam all will come im sorry wrora im not good at links or downloading stuff you will find it let me know though

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Let me try.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

I found it. Let me read it and I will reply to you.

Jazakallah, khore!

[kakargirl]

ok wrora well this stuff was found by athiest scientists which is amazing stuff

[3.14159265...]

I will discuss what I thought of the first 24 minutes. In the parenthesis I make reference to (min:sec) of the video.

To start he says he loves "the idea that God exists", I want to remind him that, that is an idea. (6:30)

He also claims that Atheists will make a sole claim to "truth" (7:57). I reject anyone who does, whether they label themselves an Atheist, a Hindu, or a German.

He makes three arguments for the existence of God, without defining God. These arguments are not new, yet they can be informative. I want you to note that I am not rejecting these ideas but discussing them.

1. God makes sense of the origin of universe.
He claims that God is the answer to the big why. This great wonder, that we all step across. Sometimes walking down the street all of a sudden I become aware that I am a human, existing, feeling, being, thinking, the absurdity of is overwhelming that I don't question it every moment. Then it passes. This is the big why.

If we were to say that God created the universe, it indeed solves that absurdity. I wouldn't have to think about it anymore. Instead, I will walk around and all of a sudden become aware that there is God who I attribute everything to, and the absurdity of his existence without anything to have created it becomes overwhelming. Then it passes.

The point being that introducing God, doesn't solve anything. It just reintroduces the problem in another fashion.

This is called the first cause problem. Please read the Wikipedia page on it, if you have not already.

My dear Hamza then walks into a territory that he should not. Mathematics, physics and the idea of the "infinite". "Infinity" as an idea is as absurd as 0 as an idea. Note it took humanity way longer to come up with 0, than it did to come up with infinity. "Infinity" as an idea is as absurd as imaginary numbers, yet engineers will hack your head off if you tell them they can't use imaginary numbers to design electronics anymore. The idea of the infinity is new and its uses few at the moment. Though they exist e.g. Casimir effect. Of course someone can come along and describe the Casimir effect without the use of "infinity" in their model. Though that is the point, our thoughts, and ideas are models and models alone.

This should not be mistaken for Hamza's argument that the "infinite" has no place in out world. The "infinite" as a model has as much right to exists as "brother", "language", "religion" or any other concept which you are thinking about right now. They are all models.


2. God makes sense of the fine tunning.

Again my dear brother Hamza walks into territory in which he doesn't belong. The answer to this argument is referred to as the anthropic principle.

Essentially, saying that the universe is fine tuned for human life is analogous to saying isn't it amazing that out of all people the people I could have been born as, I was born as me!

To me, that is a funny mind trick, and nothing profound. You make your own judgments. Also note that it is called the Anthropic principle, because it is an assumption, not something we prove from other assumptions.


3. Objective moral values exists. Objective moral values imply the existence of God.

I agree that if objective moral values, or any objective value, or objectivity should it exists will imply the existence of an all-encompassing being.

I don't however think one can prove objective reality from a subjective point of view, which makes this point mute.

The point is nicely covered with Objective moral values. The moral values have nothing to do with the argument, other than that we sometimes feel objective moral values exist.

I don't buy it. The quote beginning at 22:25 better describes my world view at the moment.

I also want to comment on the idea that if peer pressure creates the illusion of objective moral values, then we should think the holocaust was moral. As humans we indeed do act this way.

Areas that have been cannibalisitic for a long time (thousands of years), feel it is moral justified to eat humans. Areas that are omnivorous but not cannibalistic think cannibals are immoral, but that they are moral justified in killing animals. Areas that are carnivorous but not omnivorous think omnivores they are immoral, but that they are moral justified in killing plants. Areas that don't kill any thing, well they died of starvation.

This isn't to say that peer pressure creates objective moral values, but that it makes us think we have them. I think what is going on here is that we as humans have a hard time with spectrum. It is either white or black. Or at best a discrete set of values. At some point we feel the need to draw a line.

For example, only slightly relevant now: A school board decides that if the temperature goes below -20 C, they will close the school. So little kids wake up and look at the weather finding that it is -19.5 C. They have to go to school in the cold. It seems ridiculous, that with a .5 degree difference it would have been considered too cold for them to go, but only until you try and come up with a better "objective" way to deal with it. When should they close? If they allow a person to choose, he might pick too many days or too little. Anyway, this is indeed a problem about how we view and relate to the world. It is open, and good food for thought.

[3.14159265...]

(58 : 10). I want to talk about this. Watch it to understand the context.

He claims everyone has a "frame of reference", philosophers, the ego, or God as the main examples.

Then he asks you to choose what is a better frame of reference. I agree that everyone has such a "frame of reference".

I don't like the ego. I don't like the philosophers (but they do teach you early to doubt them). The more apt example is critical thought, not philosophers. I agree using critical thought as a "frame of reference" is distasteful.

Let's say, I want to make my "frame of reference" God, how do I do it? By using Allah? The Quran? Jesus? The Mahdi? Khomeini? These are just thought concepts in my own head, and thus only expressions of my own ego. Hence using that is distasteful too.

The zen path, is to let go of all frame of reference, until there is no one there to need a frame of reference. I do enjoy this at the moment. Let's see where it goes. Though isn't this a frame of reference in itself, you ask? That my friends is the sound of one hand clapping.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Pi, let us deal with each and every one of your rebuttal, one by one.

I will discuss what I thought of the first 24 minutes. In the parenthesis I make reference to (min:sec) of the video.

To start he says he loves "the idea that God exists", I want to remind him that, that is an idea. (6:30)

How could God be an idea when He is the One Who revealed the Quran?

[3.14159265...]

Pi, let us deal with each and every one of your rebuttal, one by one.




How could God be an idea when He is the One Who revealed the Quran?

I wasn't rebutting. I was discussing. Reread my post if you read it as a rebuttal.

Think of the One Who revealed the Quran. The think you are thinking about is by definition an idea, since you are thinking about.

He said "I love the idea that God exists". "That God exists". Think about that. Yep, it is an idea, and it makes you feel a certain way. He likes that feeling and wants to share.

I think that has nothing to do with God .