[Music]

[Music]

okay everyone take their seats we're

about to begin the proceedings God

willing

so no you okay

okay willing whatever it is okay

I start by praising God the

compassionate the merciful

Salaam alaikum peace be upon the whole

gathering Marhaba welcome and thank you

all very much for attending this what I

hope will be a seminal debate between

our two respected speakers on the left

and the right that's what it's all about

it's about a debate and it's about us

coming together and being you know you

know being true to each other that's

effectively what it's all about right

yeah you're in for that you in for that

man good that's great

tonight's challenging debates okay

entitled Islam or atheism okay which

makes more sense is not happening in a

vacuum

quantum No or otherwise it's taking

place within the context of a world full

of human beings looking for answers in a

world seemingly full of Western promise

a world full of information fueled by

the i-th however IT and we seem to have

failed to adequately answers the answer

the most fundamental of questions about

life our existence itself which is of

course the main core area that we're

going to be addressing tonight in this

auditorium

in London here tonight I remember you

know spending a large part of my life

asking myself why am I here

who created me you know do I have a

purpose can we be certain about any of

these you know these questions and once

you know I asked a bishop what's the

purpose of life and he said to me go and

do a theology degree right I'm not

telling you to go into a theology degree

I'm asking you to sit here in a debate

for two hours with my two honourable

guests over here yeah well you know well

ask you later well of course he didn't

know the answer by the way right that's

another issue

but what of course we can do to inform

our decisions about this debate

tonight's use our reasoning to use our

minds to use our intellect and really

took for us to have an open mind set

Muslim non-muslim Christian whatever you

are whatever you believe in we should

have an open mindset and really go at

this with sincerity that's really I'm

just asking the oh I'm asking myself

first and foremost right because that's

tough being an Irish exit Irish Catholic

yes ex yeah oh well you know that's

another story this evening

two major belief systems if you like lay

claim to the truth of going head to head

no matter which side of the fence that

you tend to reside on okay by the end of

the night that you will be better

informed about atheism and about Islam

hopefully the world perspectives the

worldview of Islam and atheism that's

what it's really all about tonight what

how is it gonna how's it gonna hang

right well we're gonna have 25 minutes

allotted for both speakers although I'm

told that that's going to change as well

okay and then followed by a further 10

minutes of you know sort of

coming back and then another three

months minutes of coming back and

although that might change professor

right and after that there will be you

know crossfire and there's gonna be no

heavy arms to be utilized in this

section both of you okay although I

understand the tongue is a lot more

vicious than nuclear weapons but what

we're effectively saying after that is

that you lovely people will get the

opportunity to ask questions as you know

make observations hopefully on the

topics right on the topic that we're

talking about and there will be two

minutes of closing remarks a little

presentation after that and we'll all go

home and we've got to be out of here by

10 o'clock

I would urge the audience not to heckle

the speakers to be polite at all times

okay and you know to listen to each

other afterwards as well don't we won't

want any blood or any fights okay and

I'm sure that you guys you understand

why I'm saying that so today our first

speaker okay she's been agreed upon okay

good okay hey you want to go first we'll

be our brother well you say brother

he's a brother in humanity you're my

brother in humanity he's my brother in

humanity and in the faith of Islam okay

okay bye it means it means God is great

yeah okay

so okay Hamza andreas doses of course

he's actually Greek not Pakistani please

you know he in fact his you know you can

see he's a little bit Pakistani but

anyway he's a student of Islamic thought

a lecturer a researcher for the Islamic

education research Academy and without

further ado I will call upon him to give

his piece

[Applause]

in al hamdulillah more salatu was-salam

ala rasoolillah to proceed respected

professor Krauss guests brothers and

sisters friends relatives I greet you

with the warmest Islamic greetings of

peace

as-salamu alaykum warahmatullahi

wabarakatuhu

which basically means may the peace and

blessings of God be upon you all today's

question is Lama atheism which makes

more sense I would argue that if we use

our reason our rational faculties we

will definitely come to the conclusion

that Islam makes more sense and I'm

going to use two simple arguments to

verify that claim argument number one

Islam makes sense of the origins of the

universe argument number two islam makes

sense of the nature of the quranic

discourse so let me go straight to the

first argument that islam makes sense of

the origins of the universe now we all

have had the same type of questions well

most of us anyway

why does the universe exist why is there

something rather than nothing and in

response to that question the

grandfather of neo atheism Bertrand

Russel said the universe is just there

and that's all it's a brute fact even in

Islamic history as early as the 8th

century we had philosophical naturalist

known as the Daria

they held similar views now the

implications of these historical

opinions is that the universe is eternal

and if the universe is eternal it

implies there is an infinite past but

the question is can we have an infinite

past does the infinite make sense

in the real world now the assertion that

the universe has an infinite past is

absolutely irrational this is because

the quantifiable infinite cannot exist

in the real world something our beloved

professor Krauss has also suggested in

his book a universe from nothing on page

71 he says clearly the energy of empty

space or anything else for that matter

cannot physically be infinite so we have

to figure out a way to do the

calculation to get a finite answer now

to highlight why the infinity or the

infinite doesn't exist take the

following examples into consideration

imagine we have for example an infinite

number of professor Krauss is in this

room and if I were to take five

professor Krauss is away how many do we

have left or some mathematicians may say

well we still have an infinite number

professor Krauss is logicians will say

we have infinity minus 5

what stops we practically removing five

professor Krauss's away from this room

nothing and if I do there should be less

than infinite but there isn't therefore

it leads to absurdities and

contradictions take this other example

into into consideration my distance

between the distance rather between

myself and professor Krauss we can

potentially split this distance into

infinite parts but I can actually

traverse the finite distance which shows

as Aristotle the Greek philosopher said

that the infinite is potential never

actualized in light of this

mathematicians Casman and newman said

the infinite setting does not exist in

the same sense that we say there are

fish in the sea and this leads to our

deductive argument now for those who

don't know a deductive argument is a

conclusion that necessary follows from

its premises and to deny a violent sound

deductive argument is equivalent of

denying reality so listen to the

deductive argument number one an actual

infinite cannot exist number two an

infinite history of past events is an

actual infinite therefore an infinite

history of past events cannot exist

therefore the universe is finite

therefore it had a beginning now this is

a deductive argument but we also have

complementary evidence which I call

Astrophysical evidence and I'm not

claiming to be a physicist we have an

established acclaimed academic amongst

us so he could tell us the rest of the

story but what have cosmologists said

they have said for example Alexander

Vilenkin in his book many worlds in one

which I believe is a friend of professor

Krauss he says would the proof now in

place

cosmologists can no longer hide behind

the possibility of a past eternal

universe there is no escape they have to

face the problem of a cosmic beginning

and just to know even professor Krauss

in his book affirms are beginning to the

universe interestingly in Islamic

thought this has been discussed that

length and there is a unanimous

conclusion that the universe is eternal

it began in the finite past as the

polymath theologian eben tamiya wrote in

the 14th century

his book a safe idea so whatever is

besides God it is all mukluks all

created originated coming to be after

not existing preceding by its own

existence now since we have shown that

the universe must have a beginning there

are four logical explanations for how

the universe began to exist number one

it was created via nothing number two it

created itself number three it was

created by something else that was

created and number four it was created

by something uncreated so let's discuss

these together could the universe be

created via nothing well first of all

most what do we mean by nothing by

nothing we mean the absence of something

and in this case the absence of the

universe now why does our definition

make sense this is because we have

deductively argued that the universe

began and therefore you it was one soon

not there there was an absence of the

universe this is undeniable due to the

deductive nature of the argument so

based on our definition I think we can

conclude that the universe coming into

being or existence via nothing is

impossible on logical rational and I

would even argue empirical grounds you

could discuss this mathematically for

example what is zero plus zero plus zero

it's never going to be three it's zero

therefore the universe could not have

come into existence via nothing as PJ's

walked in his publication about time

explains if there is anything we can

find inconceivable it is that something

could arise from nothing let's go to the

next option could the universe create

itself

well this implies that the universe was

in existence and not in existence at the

same time which is an impossibility also

there's a crude example for you to

picture in your mind ask yourself the

question can your mother give birth to

herself obviously not so we know self

creation is an impossibility so the next

option is could the universe be created

by something created well I would argue

as an ultimate explanation for how the

universe began this is illogical and

irrational the universe could not be as

a result of another universe for example

or something else that was created

because of the absurdity of an infinite

regress imagine this you

verse universe one being as a result of

another universe universe - and universe

tubing as a result another universe

universe 3 and this one on ad infinitum

we would never have the universe today

hence the Islamic philosopher and

thinker dr. Jaffa III summarizes this

point he says there would be no series

of actual causes but only a series of

non-existence the fact however is that

there are existence around us therefore

the ultimate cause must be something

other than temporal causes so I would

argue that the final possible

explanation which is the universe was

created by something uncreated is the

most rational explanation and the

philosopher Abraham Varghese in the

appendix to Professor Anthony Lewis book

there is a God explains this conclusion

in a simple but forceful way he writes

now clearly theists and atheists can't

agree on one thing

if anything exists at all there must be

something preceding it that always

existed how did this eternally existing

reality come to be the answer is that it

never came to be it always existed take

your pick the God or the universe

something always existed and we've

argued deductively that the universe

began therefore it couldn't have always

existed now this doesn't mean God exists

it doesn't mean Allah Buddha Jesus

Yahweh exists of course not that's a

leap of faith we leave that to the

atheists the point I'm trying to make

here is that if we continue if we

continue with our rational argumentation

using our aqwal aqwal meaning intellect

in the arabic language as the koran the

quranic disco says a fella tapped

balloon do you not use your brains if we

continue using our brains our mind we

will conclude something quite profound

number one that this uncreated creator

must be eternal by definition because

he's uncreated number two he must be

transcendent as even tamiya the

fourteenth century philosopher and

theologian said he must be distinct and

destroying from the universe for example

if I were to create this lectern do I

become the lectern No

number three this uncreated creator must

have a will because if it's eternal and

brought into existence a finite effect

that began like the universe

he must have chose the University come

into existence and a choice indicates a

will and a will indicates it can have a

relationship with sentient beings in the

universe number four it must be powerful

it created the atom for example if you

split the atom ask professor Krauss what

happens fifth point it must be

perpetually knowing because if it's

eternal and it established laws like the

law of gravity implies the law giver so

therefore we can make the inference that

is perpetually knowing or perpetually

intelligent because it's eternal and

created laws in the universe finally it

must be one if we use the rational

principle could Occam's razor and by the

way many people don't understand or

comes raised and I think professor

Krauss doesn't understand Occam's razor

either when I read his book but he could

debate without me later or comes raised

there's not about physical causes by the

way which has been misconstrued as a

straw man in the Kraus yen fashion

basically Occam's razor is that you must

have a simple explanation but also you

must have the most comprehensive which

means what it actually means that it has

has to have greater explanatory scope

and explanatory power because it can be

complex because it male with most of the

questions but concerning this reality

about the oneness of the divine the

argument that the creator must be one is

simple and far more comprehensive if you

say two or three or four then it's not

simple anymore and it doesn't answer all

the questions in actual fact it creates

far more questions than it answers such

as how do two three four causes Co

eternally exist it doesn't make any

sense

so I think we've concluded what the

Quran concluded 1400 years ago that

there is a creator he is one his

uniqueness transcendent as the Quran

says in the hundred twelve chapter say

he is God the one the unique God the

eternal absolute he begets not nor is He

begotten and there is nothing like unto

him now before I move on to my next

argument I really want to have a

new--it's discussion a very nuanced

discussion which means if someone offers

to talk to you you have to talk to them

back and I wasn't offended but I found

it slightly childish when I asked

someone in this room first have a China

you won't have a

with me which i think is not very nice

but that's that's that's another story

but and now I do with some contention so

we transcend this kind of what I would

call atheist cliches so what's the first

a theist cliche the first atheist please

say I call it the professor Krauss

nothing cliche and if you read his book

you will see that prose across all the

highly acclaimed academic I mean I am

nothing compared to him I think he's

right he's right he's right once again

by the way he making a statement is not

an argument know why you're clapping

like someone who's obedient slave yeah

what boy please please I have a time to

keep so in his book which I really like

his book I like his style

I like his rhetoric he wrote in his book

universe from nothing he said that

nothing is nothing with italics and

essentially was trying to say I changed

the label nothing which in the English

language is a universal negation but

he's saying nothing is actually

something which is a quantum reality and

this is quite bizarre and that's what

you have to study philosophy because you

need to make conceptual distinctions if

you probably imagine I was in the

hallway and I said you know I made

nobody and they gave me directions to

this room or imagine if I said for

example yesterday my wife made a great

lunch and it was nothing you know

nothing tastes great with a bit of

whipped cream I mean does this make any

sense and professor Krauss use of

nothing is actually something he also

says in his book in page 80 our universe

would then turning to the quantum haze

from which her own existence may have

begun and his own friend Alexander

Vilenkin said recently vacuum is very

different from nothing it's a physical

object but this is irrelevant almost

because even Krauss admits in his book

that these are speculative and

inconclusive conclusions because he says

I stressed the word could here because

we may never have enough empirical

information to resolve this question

unambiguously so I do respect what he's

trying to do but you would never take an

inductive argument over deductive one

only

intellectually challenged we do that in

my humble opinion the second contention

is that things can come into being

without any calls you have us you have a

quantum vacuum of quantum reality and

there are some summer Topic events that

I paid without no causes I believe we

have a strong defeater to this argument

and it concerns perceptions and it rests

on a Kantian argument now I can order my

perception in this room I could see this

very handsome young man I can see the

camera man I could see the wall I can

also reverse that perception but if my

wife were to start walking down this

auditorium I couldn't help but see her

from before I see her back and I

couldn't reverse that perception now the

very fact that I know when I can order

my perceptions when I can't and when I

can reverse my perceptions when I can't

is because we have an innate concept of

causal links and causal connections to

reject that based on empiricism or an

empirical reality is equivalent and

tantamount of actually rejecting the

perception itself it's like shooting

yourself in the foot this is why the

philosopher John cutting ham and his

book rationalism said but on Kent's

argument we will not be able to

recognize Devon in the first place

unless the world rule that makes it

necessary that the order of our

perception should be thus and not

otherwise

in short the very experience of an

external event already presupposes an

understanding of causal necessity so

these are the cliches let's go to the

next argument which is the nature of the

Quran now the Quranic discourse has been

described by Eastern and Western

scholars as an intrusive and imposing

text which seeks to intrude into the

inner dimensions of man now this

imposition is positive as the Quran

seeks to positively engage with your

intellect and with your psychological

disposition and the way the Quran

achieves this is by asking questions

while free unfussy come a feller tops

their own and in themselves did not see

talks about the physiological reality

the psychological reality even referring

to things like consciousness this is why

professor philosophy shabbir Akhtar in

his book the Quran and the secular mind

I for loss of years LOM

he describes what the Quran is trying to

say with these verses he says nature's

flawless harmonies and the delights and

liabilities of

human environment with its diverse and

delicate relationships I invested with

religious significance created Nietzsche

is a cryptogram of a reality which

transcends it nature is it text to be

deciphered evidences accumulating in the

material and social worlds and in the

horizons jointly point to a hidden

immaterial order you may think this is

quite interesting for a 7th century book

but the Quran goes even further than

this it produces an intellectual

challenge for the whole of mankind the

Quran says were in kuntum for a beam in

man as an ala nabi'ina but to be solid

to me miss lee he what Osho had a come

in dunya him condoms or the clean and if

you are in doubt talking to crafts

talking to me talking to everybody if

you doubt this book which we have sent

down to our servant referring to the

Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi

wasallam upon whom be peace then bring

one chapter like it and call your

witnesses and supporters besides God in

kuntum saw the pain if you're truthful

in this claim now this verse is a basis

for an array of arguments in the Quranic

discourse and we don't have time to talk

about all the arguments historical

arguments sociological argument and a

whole array of intellectual responses

but one I want to talk about is called

the intimate ability and the uniqueness

concerning the Arabic language in the

Quranic discourse which Islamic

theologians and thinkers argue that it

is a miracle now before I get into that

we have to now discuss what is a miracle

we haven't defined what a miracle is now

the word itself linguistically comes

from the latin word miraculous um thing

wonderful and the traditional Western

philosophical definition of a miracle as

summarized by David Hume in his an

inquiry concerning human understanding

he says it's a transgression of natural

law we don't agree with that definition

because what are natural laws natural

laws are just inductive generalizations

of patterns we perceive in the universe

if something changes from the pattern is

different then maybe as part of the

pattern it's just based on induction

what the profound Islamic theologians of

thinkers have done they've redefined

what America is based on the Quranic

discourse and they have said that a

miracle is

an event that lies outside the

productive capacity of nature which

means when you go to the nature of the

event you exhaust all possible

naturalistic explanations and also there

is no naturalistic causal link between

the event and the nature of the event

and this is a far more coherent

definition let me give an example from

the Koran itself now the Quran talks

about Moses Musa alayhi Salam upon whom

be peace and Pharaoh in the Quran Moses

was told to thrown down his wooden staff

and it instantaneously turned into a

live snake now

this miraculous event the snake lies

outside the productive capacity of the

nature of the event the wooden stuff

because the chemical makeup of the staff

is different to that of the snake

in actual fact you have to add more

stuff to the staff if that makes sense

stuff to the staff to be even clothes of

creating a snake but only the staff was

used so when we exhaust naturalistic

explanations we find there is no causal

link between the staff and the snake

itself so this gives us a definition of

what a miracle is now this applies to

the Quran use of the Arabic language

because the Quran cannot be described as

any of the literary forms of the Arabic

language which include sadhya rhyme

prose motor salad straightforward speech

ma Karma a combination of metric and

non-metric of speech and Ali bahar

there's 16 rhythmical patterns of

classical Arabic poetry now

interestingly in classical Arabic every

expression falls within the known

literary forms of the Arabic language

the Quran however D scopes the Arabic

language and the quran is a miracle in

this perspective because even though

it's made up of the Arabic language

there is no causal link between the

Arabic language and the Arabic in the

Quran this is because when we exhaust

the 20 letters the finite grammatical

rules and the finite words we exhaust

them we cannot produce the unique

literary form of the Quranic discourse

and interestingly from a historical and

literary perspective when attempts have

been made to produce the like of the

literary form of the Quranic discourse

they have all failed as the academic

foster fits toward our booth know a

notable British oriental estates and

that those server attempts have been

made to produce

work ecoute it as far as elegant writing

is concerned none have yet succeeded in

this light brother sisters and friends

what we just discussed can develop into

a deductive argument and listen very

carefully

number one a miracle is an event that

lies outside the productive capacity of

nature in other words there are no

causal links between the event and the

nature of the event number two the

Qurans literary form lies outside the

productive capacity of the nature of the

Arabic language it's literary form

cannot be logically explained using the

Arabic language

therefore the Quran is a miracle as

Professor Bruce Lawrence from Duke

University in his book the Quran a

biography on page number eight said as

tangible signs Quranic verses are

Express / inexhaustible truth they

signify meaning laid within meaning

lights upon light miracle after miracle

so we have two key arguments that are

based on deduction not just induction

and to challenge a deductive argument

you have to challenge the premises and I

hope professor Krauss would do that so

let's go to some contentions what about

Shakespeare Shakespeare is unique but

this is a very shallow contention and I

even heard this from Dan Barker in our

debate in Minnesota and he didn't do his

reading basically Shakespeare is not

unique from the perspective of the

structural features of language the

literary form rather its aesthetic

reception the kind of argument were

talking about the structural features of

the Arabic language and if you look at

Shakespeare he used the iambic

pentameter the trochaic verse the blank

verse and many English Sutra tools use

the same kind of structures and if you

go to the book the Oxford Dictionary of

National Biography you see that

Shakespeare has been compared to Frances

Bowmont john fletcher

and other playwrights so he's not unique

or an immutable from the perspective

that we're talking about finally the

last contention is but I'm on an arab

how would I know well we could use

another argument called rational

deduction

now rational deduction is a thinking

process where you take a university

accepted statement and from that draw

logical conclusions and no one would

deny

university accepted statements from

academia or from authorities that are

valid and

sound and authentic because this is the

realm of epistemology the study of

belief and a valid source of knowledge

actually testimony if you read the works

of Professor Cody and professor Keith

lira and the epistemology of testimony

published by Oxford you see is a ground

in argument which we could discuss later

so the authentic and valid testimony

concerning the Koran is no one has been

able to change the Quran and produce his

literary form if that is true then we

could draw a logical conclusion without

even knowing one letter of the Arabic

language we could say what could it be

from an Arab

could it be from an our non Arab could

it be from Muhammad upon whom be peace

or is it from the divine reality we know

it couldn't be from an hour because they

all failed

especially the best ABS at the time we

know it can't be a non-arab because you

have to know arabic we know it couldn't

be from Muhammad upon whom be peace

because all human expression if you have

the blueprint you can replicate it just

look at some replicas of Picasso and

Monet in art and therefore it must be

from the divine so from this perspective

we've dealt with some outdated cliches

because I really want to new in some

frank discussion I really do and I hope

I do have that will professor Krauss I

respect him dearly

and I really like I respect all of you

obviously we're gonna have a pun here in

there but you know that's the whole

point

I couldn't get couldn't let Krauss get

away what he did in the beginning

so from that perspective I really want

him to do with my premises and I want

him to do with the deductive argument

and I wish him Godspeed

thank you okay

thank you very much for that expressive

presentation on the Islamic world view

we're now going to be calling upon

professor Lawrence Krauss to come back

on that with his presentation which I

don't he's going to last more than 25

minutes I'm sure of that but but just to

let you know some of you who perhaps

don't know anything about Professor he's

a renowned cosmologist and a science

popularizer and is the foundation

professor in the school of earth and

science pace exploration a director of

the origins project at the Arizona State

University he's hailed by scientific

America as being a rare public

intellectual

he's also the author of many more than

300 scientific papers and nine

publications books including the

international bestseller the physics of

Star Trek and his most recent bestseller

entitled a universe from nothing now

being translated into 17 languages or

more professor Krauss I call upon you to

respond well first I want to thank the

people who invited me who've been very

gracious to me treated me with more

hospitality than I've gotten in many

many times I've talked so I guess that's

a beer who haven't met and obey de who's

been taking care of me last err - and

ISA who I was just working with and so I

do want to thank them tremendously uh

they showed me great respect in

hospitality and I want to I want to show

them and and and you that kind of

respect and and that doesn't mean I

respect ideas okay some ideas are

ridiculous and that's perfectly

reasonable in fact ridiculing ideas is

what makes progress so if I offend some

of you I don't mean to offend you

personally I'm a fend some of your ideas

but I don't that doesn't bother me at

all just as if just in fact if you

confront my ideas it will lead to a

discussion

what does offend me of course is

offending personal freedom and and equal

rights and that's one of the reasons why

I got upset at the beginning of this

session but that's been fixed and I

think the organizers for that as well -

agreeing to not segregate this room in a

21st century is a great step forward and

I appreciate that

now you know I'm really shocked first of

all all of the I've watched mr. source

sources right so sheís my Greek is

pretty good yeah gorgeous well you are

rather gorgeous gorgeous George over

here has all I watched some of these are

always exactly the same so I thought

they'd be different this time

and it's always begins with you and I'm

supposed to respond to you but the and I

will to some extent but it's hard to

respond to nonsense and in fact the

point of this is not is is not a

question does God exist it's not that's

not the question

it's atheism or Islam or atheism which

is more sensible I think is what it says

or something like that

now I I was just shocked because because

I thought that you wouldn't bother to

try and pretend you knew science because

you don't and we're gonna go through

that in real detail everything you said

is nonsense when it comes to science so

we'll go through and we have a little

chat if that's okay okay good

and and so I found it remarkable that

you began with that kind of nonsense and

will continue from that but let me just

first begin with the fact that the that

the premise of this debate is in some

sense inappropriate because it it

suggests two things first of all it

suggests that Islam is something special

and it isn't it's not special at all

it's one of a thousand religions that a

bit or more that have existed since the

dawn of humanity all of which claim

divine revelation all of which claim

perfection all of which contain can

proclaim infinite knowledge uniqueness

beauty etc so Islam is just a religion

like any other religion and there's no

difference it's it proclaims just as the

Rig Veda did and Akhenaten in ancient

Egypt that the universe had a beginning

nothing special okay it there's there's

absolutely nothing special the question

is Islam as one of a thousand religions

all of which make the same claims but it

mutually can do inconsistent ones so one

of the things we know

of these thousand religions they all

make mutually inconsistent claims so

they can't all be correct in fact at

best one of them can be correct because

they're not they're not consistent with

each other so that means a priori just a

priori and I don't you know like that

you like that term instead of a

posteriori

after you say that a priori Islam has a

probability of 0.1% of being correct

because just one of a thousand religions

and one of them is mimosa is correct but

since they all make the sake planes it's

probable that none of them are correct

so that's so treating Islam specially is

inappropriate then atheism is somehow

has it have been described speaker a

belief system it's not a belief system

like like Islam or Judaism or

Christianity or the North Smiths or or

or or Zeus or Thor or any of the other

myths that have been created throughout

human history it's all it's saying is

it's not a belief system is saying you

know what we don't choose to believe

that stuff because there's it's not

sensible so it's not saying we believe X

it's saying well this this myth is

inconsistent with this myth or this myth

is inconsistent with we know about the

universe and therefore it's unlikely to

be true so what atheism is it's just

saying this is unlikely to be true it's

not a belief system so to compare one

versus the other is of course false it's

a false premise it's the first part of

the false premise is atheism is that

Islam is special not special at all it's

been there it'll be gone like or be

there as long as other religions it's

it's just like all the rest and atheism

is not a religion it's just in fact what

it is is could be described as common

sense okay what it what makes sense I

will I will think that those things that

make sense are likely and those things

that don't make sense are unlikely in

fact that's what science is all about

okay so that having said that that

there's nothing special about Islam and

there certainly isn't let's let's let's

time going to talk a little bit about my

intent by the way is the other thing I

should say is debates I'm an educator

it's you know a flaw but it is what it

is that means I believe in actually

trying to illuminate ideas and lead to

discussion critical thinking and

eventually learning things and increase

in knowledge debates are meant for that

debates are rhetorical devices for

people to go out and perform make the

make statements and then challenge

others and try and convince an audience

of something that's not education so I

will talk a little bit about some of

this and then I just want have a chat

I'm gonna use my twenty five minutes to

have a little chat I'll take up my time

when I could pontificate as we've heard

and just and just ask some questions

because I'd actually like to learn some

things okay and hopefully in the process

they'll be some education for both of us

so the first thing I want to say however

I want to clear up some misconceptions

this idea of deductive arguments which

which sounds good it's not the way we

learn about reality okay

deductive arguments just don't work they

lead to irrational actions in fact if we

discuss what common sense is what common

sense is is taking your beliefs to

conform to the evidence of reality so

that you will make rational actions if

you force if you force your reality to

conform to your beliefs you'll make

irrational actions so you can deduce

things based on your beliefs on your a

priori beliefs but you'll have a problem

for example your a priori belief could

be that if you prayed to Allah that you

could walk you could jump out the fourth

storey of this window of this building

and you would land safely okay that

could be an a priori belief and in fact

you could deduce based on all your

beliefs and all of the evidence that

you're a good person all I would take

care of you or whatever you want to call

it that you wouldn't that you'd be fine

I would take the elevator down and only

one of us would be walking at the end

that is not deductive it's based on

empirical evidence okay now so so

arguing that something doesn't make

sense to you is based on the fact that

you of the assumption that you know what

sensible in advance but we don't know

what sensible in advance until we

explore the world around us our common

sense derived from the fact that we

evolved on the savanna in Africa to

avoid lions

not to understand quantum mechanics for

example as I've often said common sense

are deductive our deductions might

suggest that you cannot be in two places

at once that is crazy

but of course an electron not only can

be but it is we it doesn't make sense

because we didn't evolve to know about

it we've learned about it before starts

idea of common sense to change it's

called learning some people would rather

read an ancient book than learn and with

this has been a very good evidence of

that for example to say something is

inconceivable just means you can't

conceive it but the great thing about

the universe and the reason that I do

science is that the universe has a much

greater imagination than we do in fact

there are more things in heaven and

earth than are dreamt of in your

philosophy and that's what's wonderful

about the universe things that are

inconceivable happen all the time and

what we what that does is that expands

our mind and expanding our minds to

conform to the evidence of reality is

common sense and that's what when you

call atheism that's what that is that

just saying I'm going to accept the

evidence of reality and if something

seems like it contradicts the evidence

of reality or is irrational

I should question it now there are a lot

of ideas which which gorgeous Gorge over

here no misses short short sources sorta

Sturgess georgous I've been vegetable

and I'm trying to learn Turkish but I

said zort says mr. Doris

it's it's okay um do you speak ancient

Arabic by the way I could read a bit of

grammar you don't speak it then so your

presumption that it's beautiful H and

Arabic is just a presumption you

actually don't know what you're talking

about

okay okay I just wanted to ask that

question cuz I can't don't speak Turkish

I want to see if you spoke ancient

Arabic well I just want us to you speak

H Arabic yes I do

fluently no bi do speak it okay but not

fluently ahead well you know what

there's a real language that you don't

speak is called the language of

mathematics so let's talk about that

let's talk with this nonsense about

infinity let's take something physical

let's draw a circle and draw a diameter

what's the ratio of this instance of the

circle to the diameter do you know

you're the teacher do you know you want

to teach I know I'm asking you a

question I want to chat I don't know

well you've demonstrated that but let's

let it so you ever heard of pi oh do you

know what it is how many how many

decimals does it have an infinite number

okay so the physical distance of the

ratio of a diameter of a circle to its

circumference is an infinite number what

do you know now when we talk about now

it's amazing me as you quoted Aristotle

as the basis of science of course

Aristotle was the one that told us

objects fall in proportion to their way

because he actually didn't do the

experiment he deduced it based on what

he wanted Galileo of course did the

experiment right and we know for let's

do the experiment here in front of you

so this Optus I'm gonna take this object

in this object Aristotle would tell me

which would fall first will you tell me

what should fall first yes if you don't

know the book okay look you were right

great okay good

why resistance to what to the paper okay

exactly Aristotle didn't know that yes

okay

Aristotle also claimed that infinity was

impossible because in bleed as you

pointed out the distance from you to me

could be divided into a half and then a

quarter and then an eighth and then a

sixteenth and that's an infinite thing

and

impossible yes well the thing that they

were still didn't know how to do and you

don't know how to do is to summon

infinite series 1 plus 1/2 plus 1/4 plus

1/8 plus 1/16 adds up to 2 yes ok so

that kind of argument that infinity is

impossible it just doesn't make sense

mathematically infinities do occur now

it is true in my book that I said

infinite density or infinite energy is

it is a concept that appears to be in

contradiction with the evidence of

physics but that doesn't apply all

infinities are impossible in fact space

could be infinitely large there's no

there's no presumption that space is an

infinitely large it could be what we now

know about physics suggests it probably

isn't but there's no law of physics that

says space can't be infinitely large so

this notion that you deduce that

infinity is impossible because you don't

like it it's just not the way the world

works

because infinities happen all the time

whether you like them or not not only

that it doesn't lead to a rational to

irrational actions mathematicians have a

way of dealing with infinity we can add

infinities we can we can it take numbers

and an infinite series that for example

the series 1 plus 2 Plus 3 plus 4 plus 5

plus 6 plus 7 to infinity actually as in

mathematical terms can have a finite sum

it's minus 1 12 if you wanted to know

okay it may not seem logical to you it

may seem inconceivable to you that the

sum of a series of positive terms each

of which is bigger than 112 okay to end

up being minus 112 but the fact that

it's inconceivable to you just means

you're ignorant

thank you okay now this idea that that

that that Occam's razor razor suggests

for I mean first of all options razor is

not a principal science okay it's a it's

a nice idea that you should try for the

simplest answer to any question and

physicists try and use that sometimes

the simplest answer doesn't work in

genomics for example it'd be nice of

every gene every in fact you talked

about more than one cause for an effect

be nice if every gene every disease was

caused by a single gene one of the

reasons that genomics is so difficult as

we discover there's a complex

interaction of genes so that in fact we

that there are many separate causes of

many most diseases there are very few

diseases that have a single cause but in

fact you know what is simpler than the

one the number zero zero is a much

simpler reason there's no cause okay so

if you really wanted to apply Occam's

razor in fact you don't play no causes

now you also use the term causality

which is a term I understand you didn't

define it do you want to define it I

made you well why don't you do it now I

don't want to give you that favor well I

thought we're gonna pitch at yeah but I

want to have a chat not a chat

so that's rhetoric no connection no no

let's have a chat rhetoric we were

talking about the lecture you escaped I

wanna have a chat I'm asking you a

question do you know what causality

means you use the term yes okay well I

mean I if you use a term you should know

what it means if I have my mission I

have my definition okay okay well I'll

define and that's you know cause

proceeds effects is that sound good no

that's the wrong definition well I'd

like to work with it

well for example there's interesting

book about the quantum physics and

causality and the philosophers and

philosopher science and scientists have

disagreed on a specific definition so

they've reduced back to a fundamental

definition limit level you won't have a

child or a chat I've been finished yeah

let's don't disagree about the

definition have you presumed your

results here do you all really want to

connect with me as a human being no but

give me what you've asked me a question

you're answering it for me I mean come

on let me as a scientist okay now which

is the same I agree

now so from my limited knowledge and I

do believe it is limited of course yeah

is that the agreement has been on

something which produces an effect which

includes therefore you can have

something called asymmetric spontaneous

causality where the cause exists prior

causally but not prior temporarily so

there is a whole grain which was prior

causally not very typically prior

causally means that there is like they

could I give an example the Kantian

example was you have an infinite ball

that's on an infinite pillow now they

both like time doesn't exist

but you're not going to say the

indentation is not as a result of the

board so there is a cool the dependency

there and time is out of the window so

we could discuss causality until the

cows come home but you know it's not as

simple as what you're trying to say in

terms of that it doesn't pursue temper

temper attitude you see well III think

it does I think we again if you think

carefully what you just did

okay the ball doesn't create a indented

pillar by the way used infinite I

thought we weren't allowed in Phaneuf

anyway um it was an example yeah well as

example of a physical example which you

said doesn't exist if it but doesn't

matter what's infinite a pillow here a

finite pillow on a finite ball yes okay

there's an indent of course there is

okay what's the ball was it that was the

ball there or not

well my example wasn't based on finer to

do this basically they're both infinite

well but if but if the ball isn't on the

pillow it doesn't create an Indian right

yeah of course okay so it had to be so

was it put on the pillow or not bless

irrelevant your damming the example

that's that takes a logical fallacy get

the physical causes have physical

effects so we do the Paul is on the

pillow or not now the point about

causality is that that that the

interesting aspect of it is is that's an

interesting physical question but what

if there's no before let's take you know

you talked you talked about the

cosmology so let's take general

relativity whose equations I'm sure you

don't know and I said I don't know

anything inning oh we talked to you made

it very clear that the beginning of the

universe is very important you deduced

it but in fact deduction doesn't matter

the point is the universe our visible

universe did have a beginning because we

can measure it whether we liked it or

not or whether we think it's sensible or

not it actually did have a beginning of

cause not a factor not a dispute our

universe had a beginning now however the

laws of physics tell us right now if we

extrapolate back to the beginning that

it's quite that if we took it at face

value that time didn't exist before T

equals zero so if time doesn't exist at

all what's the what the sense of cause

doesn't even make sense

and this is the key point in science

we've to realize that our common sense

notion sometimes go out the window

when we observe effects they have causes

but at the beginning of time when time

itself may have come into existence then

that question becomes a bad question

philosophers can debate it people can

write it down but it doesn't matter now

the other thing I will say is if somehow

talk to me about the fact that the Quran

as a literary document is different than

other literary documents and you've

given some arguments understand what I

actually did this the other day because

I've seen you give this talk at

gazillion times I actually input in a

computer a lot of Arabic words and asked

them to produce that a random and I

produced two sentences from the Arabic

and 11 point from the Quran and 11.6

seconds my computer speaks neither

Arabic nor as Arab but produced that

incredibly divine those dim credibly

divine words now the other question of

course I would have is oh and this is a

common sense questions why did God

choose Arabic or Aramaic or Greek I mean

what you know doesn't he speak English

or the Americans always think he does

which is why they invented the Mormon

religion but and so so so the question I

want to ask is what makes sense is to

ask not the details of the Quran which I

don't want to dwell on because it's just

one of a thousand difference all of

which make the same claims and all of

which if you look at the map ryouri

aren't equally ridiculous from a a

priori common sense notion for example

and I got this from my friend about my

late friend Christopher Hitchens is it

sensible to assume that humans humans

evolved in their present form somewhere

between two hundred fifty thousand to a

million years ago so you have a God who

creates a universe and and has four and

a half billion years of life evolving

and then and then Homo sapiens evolved

and live in incredibly awful conditions

and and for 250,000 years and suddenly

in the middle of the desert

where no one can see it he takes some

poor Schmo and says I'm gonna tell you

the truth and not only that I'm gonna

allow you to save humanity and in fact

if people don't believe you they're

gonna go to hell for eternity and we can

talk in great length and great

sadomasochistic lengths about the

torture they're gonna have and we can

all enjoy it

now what what about all those poor

250,000 years two hundred fifty thousand

years of people of real people who were

struggling to exist and survive those

poor people who were existing before

that God decided to to give his

revelation to Mohammed why that why

would why would a sense of a God wait

that long and of course the interesting

question you have to ask is why are the

revelations always done when no one can

see them if you're if you're asking a

court of law and say well you know what

it just doesn't make sense why doesn't

once why don't once it doesn't call down

from the sky so everyone can hear them

why is it always given to people in

private who then claim they've had a

revelation now why should I believe

Muhammad's revelations anymore than

anyone else's in fact there's a young

woman in the United States in my country

who has you know had a revelation you

may know this she had a revelation God

told her to drown her four children in a

bathtub and she did because God told her

she heard it she heard it she had a

revelation it was real

she heard words and incredible harmony

and beauty that she'd never experienced

before in her life and she drowned her

four children okay now she's in a mental

hospital for good reason because there's

no evidence there's no that a sensible

person would believe to suggest that God

was telling her to drown the poor

children

now why would did let me ask you do you

do you think Sharia law should be

instituted oh it depends how you define

Sharia law do you know anything about

Sharia laws well I was gonna ask you

about it I will teach you in the next

round okay good do you think for example

that last femur should be punished

blessed females meaning maybe if I say

let's let's I just say and forgive me

let's just say I say that someone who

married a nine year old girl is

is a pedophile yeah and maybe that

person is a prophet is that a blasphemer

should that be is that worth being

punished for well I think you should be

educated first of all no no maybe I'm

not saying it happened but let's say I

said that I made that claim should I be

punished in a court of law with the

justice there will be a form of

punishment yes okay so if I what about

if I questioned openly questioned the

existence of God in fact said openly and

preached you know in a room that there's

no God it's not worth punishment this is

foot in our history we don't have a poem

of intellectual debate and dialogue I

even mentioned the eighth century

diarrhea so if I say that Allah is not

God but Thor is God and people should

worship Thor and I go and that's not

blasphemous well it's wrong and it's in

his childish but I will have a

discussion but but it's blasphemous to

suggest is a blasphemous to suggest that

Mohammed isn't a prophet well from an

Islamic perspective but you have

misunderstood in between public

intellectual discourse and being

deliberately rude okay well that's all

for for intellectual discourse as per

this big debate oh but you say I should

be punished if I suggest Mohammed was a

child molester no no I wasn't saying

that well that what I'm saying is in an

Islamic law for instance if you were to

speak about something this and you would

be taken to a court under certain

conditions there may be a punishment but

generally speaking will be more edifying

and education about there being

punishment I so I'm asking you oh you

ask you asking me if they should be

parchment I think we should follow goes

low of course so there should be a

punishment I think there should be a

present if your delivery harming anyone

else or openly questioned but John

Stuart Newton had the same appeal albany

radically so so no no there's a

difference don't strawman my position

let me take your straw Manning with

addition homosexual man yes and you have

sex with another homosexual man is that

so should that be subject to punishment

in the private home is outside of the

Sharia law if they did it in public

which does even happen where you're from

then there's a different story

[Applause]

where my trunk where am i from

well you are from the United States and

that's and so it doesn't even happen and

where I'm from now that's that's rude

but any case I thought heiresses happen

where I'm full of the stats so two

people in Arizona are out in the desert

having sex because they really get

turned on yes and they're both men and

they have sex together yes okay

is that punishable if there's no one in

the desert no it's not it's so much okay

let me ask you another question it's

homosexually wrong in the islamic

tradition is a sin okay now here's

here's an idea of why common sense

should tell you that Islam like many

other religions is not common sense this

first for most actually is perfectly

natural in all in all animal species

almost it's natural it occurs with a 10%

frequency okay in fact there are good

evolutionary reasons for homosexuality

so in that sense there's no reason that

a fundamental why would a God who

thought it was a sin make it natural

among all species I don't think the

sheep by way which 10% of sheep are long

term homosexual relationships

why would a god who thought it was a sin

create sheep who don't have a soul who

can't who aren't able to think about it

be homosexual that's the kind of

nonsense that we have to ask and the

only way we can determine if it's

nonsense is by looking at the world

around us not by deducing it not by

listening to the words of ignorant

individuals in irony rnh peasants who

didn't even know the earth orbited the

Sun wisdom and learning comes from

observing the world around us and we

shouldn't take our wisdom for people who

didn't even understand the way the world

worked thank you

there's a Kraus thank you very much for

your presentation on the Atheist

worldview I think it was I think it was

actually more like a dialogue nice to

chat between you two guys actually yes I

was wondering when I should jump in and

stop you guys you know anyway I'm sort

of startled in place how did the same

thing but now we've got something to

sort of come back on and no doubt Hamzah

in about ten minutes

yes thank you possibly come back and of

course as some of those contentions

brought up by professor Krauss thank you

very much professor Krauss audience

first and foremost I think most of what

he said was a red herring a red herring

is this very smelly fish that you pull

across the path of running dogs and the

reason was a red herring because he said

that I spoke about science I

specifically said he knows better than I

do

I specifically didn't use it as my key

argument for the finite of the universe

and he wanted to correct me or something

that I didn't even mention myself this

is what you call not rhetoric no

intellectual arguments what he called

sophistry its rhetoric with crap frankly

now and I'm not saying it should be I'm

not saying it should be rude because

there's a typical Kraus en fashion a

crashing fashions from the winner of the

whole audience maker who hi in the

beginning and you know imagine I did

that when I walked into one day I had

interfaith dialogue and imagined I

walked into a Jewish Moscow Hall that

was public and I basic said I don't want

to do things your way but I want to

discuss with you but I'm not gonna do

things your way is that tolerance is

that you connect with other people he

would to know about our tradition but he

won't even ask them why do you have this

and he another straw man justice and

equal rights you think they're saying

that because I don't have any justice or

equal rights my wife is up there ask my

wife what's the matter with you

see these presumptions from Fox News

you're an academic but when you talk

about Islam is based on the Fox News

narrative and I'm gonna expose this in a

minute now the first point I want to

make

[Applause]

now you use the word a prior more than

three times but you rejected deductive

thinking I mean isn't a productive I

mean you can't have your cake and eat it

sir that's the first point the second

point I'd like to make actually let me

calm down the second point I would like

to make is that see we're not we're not

rejecting inductive arguments of course

we're not you're forgetting the

inductive method a scientific method you

know it came from Sir do you know it

came from I know in fact there's a

remarkable scientific mathematical

tradition in the Arab world and that's

we're going to talk about I'm going to

buy even anti-fan whose book on optics

read the works of David Limburg and

others his stories of philosophy and

science and they say came from Islam you

know why because Islam doesn't reject

the Arab world they didn't come from

Islam well let me give you the link let

me give the link okay a fellahin Varuna

a little eb leaky for colic cut had have

you not seen empiricism the creative

thing like a camel and how it was formed

i was created this was the basis and

this was the poetic justification for

the entire scientific method as muslims

we go where the science takes us but

we're not stupid deductive arguments

they are necessarily true necessarily

true if you wanted to discuss my

argument you had to break down the

premises which you didn't you just

taught us talking about the infinite and

the circle in the sun conference i knew

we're going to do this because it's all

mathematics you remember what I said

yeah but let me make a point

let me make a point I said the

quantifiable infinite the quantifiable

infinite cannot be actualized in the

physical wrote something that you you

agreed with one second and I said

there's nothing wrong with a qualitative

infinite and quality of indifference

can't exist infinitely for example

mathematicians discuss yes so where's

the infinite there that's what the

length once is you just if you think

this is a length a length is a physical

quantity that is that is there okay the

length of this and the length of that

okay the ratio of those two lengths is

an infinite number yes of course it is

okay well what is that length what is

that length 1 this is a length 1

okay can you one second can you measure

weight can you measure the straight line

and can you measure the circumference

yes or no I can measure it well that's a

point as quantifiable what you're

talking about is in the realm of

mathematical room of discourse which has

axioms and conventions which makes sense

I'm not disagreeing with that I'm

agreeing what you already agreed with in

your own book which from a quantifiable

discrete perspective you can't have an

infinite that's the point I'm trying to

make the discrete parts oh well that's

your presupposition

that's your presupposition you bro your

assumptions Fox News by the way and

other stuff and you think you've got an

answer I have time let me finish this

please you different yeah I know but

calculus is based on actions of

convinces in a mathematical room of

discourse describes how things work yes

let me make a point so that's the first

point oh dear okay

then you spoke about for example zero is

simple as up comes again you've

misconstrued or Occam's razor is Occam's

razor it's not only the simplest

explanation because it has to have

greater explanatory scope and

explanatory power 0 has no explanatory

scope of power concerning the origins of

the universe from that perspective the

other point I like I like to make is you

spoke about for example hell and justice

and look at all these people they're

going to hell again another huge straw

man you've misrepresented Islamic

theology we have a very nuanced theology

sir I think the best thing to do if you

were sincere you would have said you

know Hamza I don't get this I haven't

read this before I'm just making my own

mind up because I watched videos of

Christopher Hitchens and he's an

authority to me I don't know much can

you tell me what Islam says about this

issue that would have been better

wouldn't it but again it's a straw man

when it comes to things like health we

believe God is over Justin all-merciful

okay no one disagrees with the concept

of punishment okay you know when I

disagree with the cost of the punishment

are you so when it comes to people who

haven't heard about Islam there's a

whole array of theologians like a bent a

me and a leg is Ali who said that

there's going to be another form of

justice for them they may be tested on

the day of judgment based on other

prophetic traditions it's not as simple

as that

okay homosexuality is a sin again you

try to put words in my mouth and and

that's not nice

that's not

I ask you questions I didn't you did by

then now if you try to answer them for

me which is quite interesting now see we

don't believe homosexual tendencies

tendencies per se are sinful

it's the manifestation of the homosexual

act in public is sinful because we

believe in in our theology anaemic let

me just make the point that we're given

a package we all have tendencies some

are people have tendencies you know that

the polygamous for example or other who

have tendencies that may be seen

negative or taboo other people have

tendencies concerning various different

things that we believe this is a package

that God has given us but we have an

empowering for losses which says that

God okay when he gives you these

tendencies whatever they are whatever

kind of inclinations we are we have we

use our akhada intellect by

understanding the divine reality and

what he wants from us because God would

know me better than I know myself and he

would say fine you have these tendencies

this is how you shape them this how you

control them like we don't believe in

like we should be agitated purely based

on the Beast all aspects of man whether

it's heterosexual or homosexual and by

the way you know sing off to your mother

is equivalent major sin as being a

homosexual so the point I'm trying to

say is we don't condemn people per se we

don't say you know I'm gonna kill you we

appreciate every human being they have

spiritual needs but we're not gonna

we're not going to make up our own

religion we're not gonna follow the

crowd seein religion whatever he says

we're gonna follow the divine reality

because homosexuality is a sin it's a

saying just like drinking alcohol is a

sin for the Muslim or for example being

harmful to human beings is a sin right

difficult I have a tendency and I'm a

martial artist and I want to harm people

does that mean now you know God is wrong

just because I have that tendency I mean

that's that's not right anyway I'm still

looking for some count some strong

counter arguments you made to my points

well they were because you didn't you'd

okay this is pretty simple it doesn't

exist

yes it does you didn't you didn't know I

said the quantifiable infinite doesn't

exist I agree the infinite exist don't

again another straw man the point I'm

trying to give argument that the

universe is finite if it's finite it

began

exist if it began to exist are some

logical possibilities please add contain

those logical possibilities if not its

equivalent you come into my house having

a coffee I'm talking to you but you're

talking to the window and I know you

have you have better morals and manners

than that because I know you're highly

respected and we do or respect you in

some paradoxical way but the point is

the point I am trying to say professor

Krauss is that I think it's only fair if

you want to pick and choose from the Fox

News narrative that you actually try to

change that stance to say right what

does Sharia law say do you have a book

of Sharia law at home I ask you so I

could learn no you were telling me do

you have a book okay do you have a book

of Sharia law no and you make judgments

and you be okay I have a book on atheism

I think it's based on long grace but I

give the intellectual epistemic respect

to read your worldview but you've come

here Polizei sorry I'm sorry you've come

here blase almost arrogant I don't want

to judge you and say you know it's all

rubbish I'm not gonna take any of his

arguments I know better than you which

you said that and I do agree in physics

you do and you've come here making

judgments of Sharia law you don't even

have a book on Sharia law so I asked

[Applause]

questions I asked you questions so I

could learn I asked what you thought yes

as someone whose opinions I'm supposed

to respect and I wanted to know yes did

you think it was wrong and I want to

tell why there's no sense why

homosexuality is wrong I wanted to know

what common sense tells you that

homosexual is wrong except some

self-proclaimed prophet telling you Mel

wouldn't know evidence there's a

different place okay

okay let me let me let me ask let me ask

professor cross the question why is why

is incest wrong it's it's not clear to

me that it's wrong okay listen to me

wait let this given us given the respect

please he's good just ask a question if

you want me to answer it okay the point

is most societies have to have a taboo

on interest and it's an empirical one

generally incest produces genetic

defense yes okay and so that so in in in

general there's a physiological reason

in it and a societal one why incest is

wrong yes okay but if you ask me the

question is it and this is a nurse T

question we are in by the way it's an

ingrained there's an ingrained incest

taboo in almost all societies for that

reason sure because societies want to

persist so it works but if you ask me a

priori for example the question if a

brother and a sister loved each other

and used contraception is is there

something absolutely morally wrong about

that

I'm and that by the way and it was once

and they went off and it didn't affect

anything else I have to think about it

because I don't think there's any

absolute condemnation of that fact if

they love each other and care for each

other

and they go off and it doesn't affect

anything okay I would I recommend it no

would I be particularly happy about

about what would I be willing to listen

to those arguments if they were rational

maybe okay good

so see this is precisely the plan I'm

trying to make professor Krauss is that

I find it quite interesting

someone who adopts an atheist position

would have strong moral judgements about

religious tradition whereas you're more

judgements at best are relative and

subjective now when you look about moral

theory from an Islamic perspective in a

religious perspective you see that

objective morals that even putting the

thing and saying you know you're wrong

your nonsense Sharia law is backward

these kind of strong emotive things

I think we can only be that emotive and

strong in an objective sense if you have

God as a grounding three objective moral

values because if you take good out of

the picture he's the only concept that

transcends human subjectivity social

pressure you know that doesn't work

look what happen in Nazi Germany you

know for example evolution makes it end

up being an ephemeral and empty if you

look at the philosopher of science Myka

rules he said you think loving thy

neighbor as thyself is like you're

referring above and beyond yourself but

essentially it has no true meaning it's

just a product of surviving reproduction

so from this perspective you don't have

an ontological grounding for objective

more truth the best you could do what a

lot of atheists have done is well we

believe in more realism which is more

troops are just more troops because they

are well Islam just is and the Prophet

Muhammad upon TVs just is and the Quran

just is that's not an argument so the

reason I ask you that question sir was

to say how on earth from an intellectual

perspective can we point the finger at

religions from a moral perspective and

especially today's Ben the irony is most

of your articulation against Islam has

had a moral vibe to it not a rational

one because you didn't deal with the

premises of my argument there you know

you didn't you talked about infinity and

causality infinity the card the words

that you were throwing out yes and what

do you say about causality I said in

fact that it's quite likely the

beginning universe causality isn't a

good question

but you understood the field please yeah

no your presupposition of causality it

is it's time doesn't exist

yes base doesn't it okay think about

that the statement something produces an

effect where is time as a definition

there produces no it could be a quote it

could be it could be it could be a

temporal what a temporal you will

explain to me clearly what you mean in a

physical way and okay don't just give me

publish language give me it give me a

physical example okay let me give you

like your nothing is a physical example

yeah well you haven't described what my

nothing is yet you read the preface like

a number of people did but I don't know

if you got very far actually I read the

whole book I liked it what's my nothing

your nothing what is my nothing your

nothing is quantum no there is no no

space no time no laws that no nothing

but that's still the quantum haze no it

is

there's no universe there's no universe

nothing zero zip nada so why did you say

in your own book then that we would

reduce to haunt quantum haze Hamza cani

cani wait took a lot of my time he took

it over my time thanks very much Hamza

please come and sit down brother I

didn't want to stop you and mid-flow

there but over to the mother self there

must be some Greek and professor Krauss

yeah look okay well we can continue the

discussion because it should be

discussion my point is that the question

I repeat again is what's more sensible

and what's more sensible ultimately is

what produces more rational action and

I'm sorry if you talk about tolerance I

get so tired of hearing people talk

about tolerance but then I hear people

talking about blasphemers I should be

allowed to boot blaspheme all I want

because ridicule is an important part of

inquiry and discussion sometimes

ridicule some ridiculing something

illuminates it and I hear about

blasphemers I hear I hate to say it and

this may be a complete miss application

of Islam it could be that Islam as its

practiced in many countries in the world

is a misapplication of Islam but all I

can see is intolerance when I see those

principles applied it tolerance to

blasphemers intolerance homosexuals

intolerance in general now the other

question the other thing I want to say

is this God if we ask what sensible why

would we think that this unproven God

that is supposed to be the basis of not

just Islam but all religions different

gods different characteristics but the

Islamic God much like the

judeo-christian God is a real creep this

is a god worse than a saddam hussein

instead of the tort torturing you just

for your life torches you for in

Finity forgive me the word but eternity

let me use that word eternity for not

believing for not believing your

tortured for sinning the tortures are

actually described in the Quran and you

know what as well as I do and the point

is if you just to ask yourself common

sense if you were a divine being say you

had an ant colony that you made in your

house would you be offended if those

ants didn't pay homage to you five -

well let's start with fifty times a day

before Mohammed cut it down to thirty

and then five would you be offended if

those ants didn't pay homage to you five

times a day and if they didn't if they

didn't look up to you or didn't

recognize your existence would you

destroy them no I mean it just seems so

petty so why should we believe in an

hateful unmerciful petty sadomasochistic

homophobic sexist god it's just

irrational it's not sensible there's

nothing it's end there and the point is

it and and and I don't want to I don't

want to single out Islam here and I know

I'm offending some people but the same

is true for the god of Moses okay if you

read if you really believe that the

Scriptures were were literally true the

morals in that book are reprehensible

it's okay when you know when an angel

and angels appear to do a lot of things

including coming down and and and and

and and making revelations to Muhammad

which Muhammad didn't write down as far

as I know the first example the Quran

was 20 years after he died so there was

a lot of talk and some of that talk got

it turned into perfect writing well

after Muhammad was dead but those angels

come down but in this case in the case

of of course laud as you know the angels

came down and and they and they were men

they came in the form of men which I

don't think is allowed in in in certain

versions of the Quran at least but

anyway they did and then they were gonna

be raped so what did Locke do of course

he said don't rape them take my

daughters because daughters are

dispensable what kind of what kind of

moral lesson is that that you want to

learn okay now I'm sorry that's in the

Bible actually that's from my religion

okay or my aunt's ancestors religion I

have none

okay so those are the kind of moral

lessons that I find not sensible and so

let's oh I'm glad I'm happy I picked the

Old Testament and not the Quran to talk

about immoral intolerance the idea of

punishing people for eternity for

choosing to find something unlikely is

not tolerant the idea of punishing them

in vicious evil ugly ways for all

eternity is not merciful it is the

opposite of rational common sense now in

terms of explanatory things let me just

spend a few minutes teaching a little

bit of science so if you have an

infinite temporal let's say time exists

two beyond our universe let's just allow

for that because it's easier to describe

that and let's say our universe spawned

a universe can given the laws of nature

spontaneously come into existence okay

then it will come into existence it will

come into existence at some time and the

fact that it came into existence at that

time need not have any reason there's

not it need not have any reason why was

that time rather than some other time

but whatever time it happens it will

come into existence and people could say

there's some significance to that but it

must happen somewhere at some time and

there need not be any significance any

purpose any intelligence for why it

happened now instead of then it's

guaranteed to happen at some point now

if you say during that creation there

are laws one of which is the quantum

laws of quantum mechanics which can

create a universe with zero total energy

by the way and by creating a universe I

mean a universe that didn't exist there

was no space there were no times and no

laws in fact and then you come in and

say okay if that universe is created

spontaneously it must be created at some

time so a universe must come into

existence in fact an infinite number of

universes come can come into existence

if time is infinite okay it's certainly

possible then a universe will come into

existence and you can say let me predict

the properties of that universe well lo

and behold the properties that universe

happen to be exactly the properties of

the universe we live in

including the struck

of the fluctuations of causal microwave

background that collapse to produce all

the galaxies and all the stars in the

planets and you and me that's

explanatory there's no explanation at

that level in any way in your book so

the explanation of a universe that could

come into existence from nothing without

any purpose without any planning without

any reason is explanatory now lest I'm

be misconstrued that is just plausible

because we do not have a full scientific

theory but to make the claim as I know

you've often made that because that

there are certain things we will never

understand is to is to misunderstand

science there are lots of things we

don't understand today and that's the

reason to go out and do science it's

just like Darwin said you know he said

and the evolution of species I'm

describing the evolution of species I'm

not describing the origin of life will

never understand the origin of life will

no sooner understand the origin of life

than we understand the origin of matter

well of course he didn't realize that we

don't want one day understand the origin

of matter just as I expect in your

lifetime in my lifetime we'll understand

the origin of life will understand how

chemistry turns into biology by doing

experiments testing and not forcing our

predilection that it's impossible I have

a debate recently somebody said it's

impossible for non life to turn into

life well that's a nice statement it's a

nice belief and it's a belief you can

have but it's a belief that can be wrong

and that's the great thing about science

which you can call a theism if you wish

it's you're willing to change your

beliefs you're not assuming the answers

before you ask the question you're not

assuming you know what's divinely right

just because you interpret a certain

book to mean a certain thing and someone

else may interpret it to mean something

else you will agree there are different

interpretations of every book including

the Bible in the Koran and so you to

presume that you know divine truth

before you vast the universe is not

sensible and I don't think I'll take any

more time

Thank You professor Krauss now over back

over to hams of three minutes it will be

there abouts thank you professor thank

you very much for your presentation now

I really want you to try and address

some of my arguments you produce

something about with the Koran but if

you were attentive to my argument the

Koran says bring a chapter like it not

two verses from different chapters so

again it was a straw man of the

articulation of what the Quranic miracle

was and I could spend more time maybe

during the Q&A to explain where that is

by specifically said bring one chapter

like it your computer model which I like

to see evidence of by the way but like

it I mean who was do you decide or do I

okay is that different to me shape

there's more beautiful than the Quran

that's fine okay but James Joyce yeah he

doesn't use iron bank honest I haven't

understand sir okay but we have to

understand sir is this is that I

repeated maybe more than once it's not

based on aesthetic reception and your

opinions on beauty who's who determined

it well it's the reality empirical

reality who I'm gonna explain let me

explain with arguing is again because

from your own set you've misunderstood

is what people who said they couldn't

have been created but those are just

literary scholars what I mean what if I

say yeah it could be creative yep let me

just explain that because your first

presupposition was based on a fall so it

wasn't it yeah

if you thought is aesthetic reception

it's based upon the structural features

of the Arabic language now because I

only have two minutes I'll continue on

the Q&A okay so also you're saying about

that though if the universe began and we

could show that may be empirically or

deductively my focus is on the deduction

here and I don't think you really

address on the infinite perspective when

we said that this is based on axioms and

conventions in the mathematical realm of

discourse but in discrete physical parts

as you view in it you've admitted in

your book that can't happen so we have a

deductive argument the universe began

which means it once wasn't there

ontological II if there wasn't a cause

for that you wouldn't have the universe

in the first place the second point I

like to me there's a thought you see the

photon that's lighting you up from that

thing yes it didn't exist what before

was emitted by the electron

okay it didn't exist yes it wasn't there

and you're saying there's no cause if it

wasn't you know pointed yeah I take it

I'm saying what I'm saying is what I'm

saying is there can be physical causes

for physical effects yes okay but they

don't have to be but God doesn't have to

pull the photon up just because your

photon appears from nothing doesn't

require something supernatural I agree

okay so if the universe suddenly

distance where it wasn't before

it doesn't require something super I

already I already gave you a defeat to

the argument that you assume that when

things begin to exist they may not

require any causes and that defeat was

not any purpose I didn't say cause I

look I just said if a universe can come

into existence by physical causes yes

where there's no universe begin with it

will happen at some time and your point

was I agreed and therefore if there's a

reason I happened because it happened

when it didn't happen then it would have

happened some other to you and we would

have had this conversation let's calm

down you're putting words in my mouth

okay okay well I'm saying

I'm not saying things like I'm not

talking about TD or teleology I'm not

talking about there is a purpose beyond

use definition did you not say our

universe came into existence for cause

and there had to be a reason for it no I

didn't say reason well had to be a

purpose no I didn't say that said there

was a boy you said there was an

intelligence you gave a whole long oh

that's after using conception annexes

that you agree that there is a uncreated

creator a cools that was uncaused now

don't forget to all that I just talked

about our universe yeah you are you

agreeing with me that our universe

doesn't have to have any purpose or a

reason to grade it no of course no I

don't agree with you

well but that's not my argument my

argument is deductively was the universe

once absent yes if that's the case then

ontological II which means the nature of

source of reality is that it couldn't

have come into being without a cause

well well okay first of all the sim I

wish I hope it's that way because that'd

be easier to understand yes okay it's

possible that it's not that way okay so

if it has and we you could take this out

of my time if you don't give a damn the

the the point is that maybe maybe time

exists outside of our universe maybe it

doesn't

let's just pretend it does

and then our ears came into existence

and there was a physical cause for that

that's fine I'm fine with that

I'm fine with our universe coming into

existence for physical cause just like

that photon being created but as I

pointed out to you it's equally possible

that these notions that we have in our

brains because we're humans living in a

classical level that time that something

that time exists and as a continuous

flow may break down and if they break

down at T equals zero then any sense of

the word cause becomes nonsensical that

and that's the word cause is a red

herring in their terms it's not worth

discussing

it may not be relevant to the creation

of our universe because there may not

have been any time before it and

therefore they're made this notion that

every every cause every effect has a

cause maybe irrelevant if there's no

time now I don't know if that's the case

but I'm willing yes I'm willing to ask

the question and I'm willing to do

studies to see if it's reasonable I'm

not willing to presume the answer before

I ask the question of course but the

point is the presumption here is is that

you require time and that there's a

specific physical definition for time

now presumption is after T equals zero

you clock required time that's

absolutely true the presumption that you

acquire time at T equals zero if you

took the equations as they're written no

no you time would go up I mean I'm not I

don't have a contention with the physics

that's your journal but there's no but

if you take us a written there's no time

the time it has no meaning at T equals

zero okay agree according according to

the physics I don't disagree with you

guys I highly highly respect that but

all of that is inductive in nature no

it's not

of course why is it based on is it did

that based on observation which is

inductive hearing you know you you know

the problem is it's empirical okay well

what's the empirical you do you have an

infinite set of observations have you

had an infinite set of observations now

if you're gonna tell me I read your I

read your of some of you raw which

really misrepresented science you're

absolutely right if you're gonna tell me

science can never tell anything with

absolute certainty yes okay that's

except things that are wrong yes

that's what science could tell thank you

it's good tell see work doesn't it

bother you okay science cappella

but that science could tell us many

things and so I don't disagree with you

okay so dis exactly okay so the fact

that science can lead us closer to the

to what is the underlying reality is

absolute truth and the fact that that

science can't stay with anything with

absolute certainty is absolute true

except what's wrong

yes I agree okay and it can say certain

claims for example that the moon split

in two when he was wrong now I know use

another red herring another red herring

I know another red herring but loads of

fish in this room today some people as

you'll know some people as you know some

interpreters of that thought that was

the case but they're wrong you agree

with me do you agree that I'm making a

different point here professor saying

okay all I'm saying is this is a book of

words and you can interpret it in many

different ways and some interpretations

I'm gonna I'm gonna address that I'm

gonna just as well but that's look

moving from so many different issues

like a it's a typical strategy of not

knowing how to respond to a particular

point look the point of interpretation

for example the Koran for example if we

read the whole of the car holistically

we understand it's probably the only

religious book that gives you tools of

interpretation for example the Koran

says there are some open-ended verses

ambiguous verses and they specified so

in linguistics is could intro and

intertextuality now therefore it creates

a scope of interpretation yes I agree

this interpretation but there are some

things that I like outside of the scope

because you don't know the language you

don't know the interpretive tools you

don't follow the scholarly tradition etc

so there is yes I agree a scope of

interpretation but it's it's fixed so

that in essence the red herring the

point I want to get to it's different

about that then save Christian theology

theological different interpretation

well that's very interesting well for

example in the personal tradition the

reason they moved away from the Catholic

Church is because they said look is me

in my book and I could interpret the way

I won but now a lot of protists are

coming back to the Catholic tradition

because they sing how to understand

God's Word and that's why they see the

church entity as an interpretive

Authority you see so obviously they have

their own confusions but the book

doesn't tell it how to interpret it

that's that's what you have the German

school of systematic theology got the

Catholic Church yes now accepts

evolution for example and say you're

right the book doesn't tell us how to

interpret yep this ridiculous first but

it's going to give back to my original

point which is the

there's nothing unique about you keep

pretending you Islam is unique and I

don't see it can we do with a point of

time okay okay okay but you throw these

things we believe Islam is not unique if

I don't professor professor we don't

believe Islam is unique we believe it's

a universal message that believes the

one true God don't enslave yourself to

your ego and your and your desires and

the bestow aspects of my no to the

social pressure laurio because I'm worth

it by free yourself free yourself from

these free yourself from these shackles

and worship the divine which gives you

true freedom because if you want real

Liberty Liberty interesting the word

rock in the Arabic language means soul

or self and it comes from the trilateral

stem of which one both in different

contexts okay we must be newest okay not

reductionist so well when you die you'll

find out let me just get my point

[Applause]

let me make my point really bad

explanation well because it gives me

something I can't test listen I'm the

Greek I'm supposed to be full of

sophistry in rhetoric ii nür

the point i'm trying to say is that no

adoro etymologically shares the same

meaning with the word or raha which

means liberty and serenity and

interestingly you know we all want to

seek this type of Liberty but the irony

is from an existential perspective you

know what does it mean to exist Who am I

whoa-ohh in a state of slavery because

your birth sir your birth madam is just

like the American writer once wrote we

were born and then we were sold into

slavery you never chose your birth that

was Rousseau said daddy what man is born

free yeah yeah exactly

let me get poetic here yeah so the point

is we don't choose our birth

I didn't choose those going to be Greek

looking like a Pakistani you never you

never chose that shape well you know I'm

growing my hair just like yours

okay so nice so the thing is the thing

I'm trying

thank you thank you we're becoming

friends now yeah so the point I'm trying

to say is look you know let's just be

nuanced about some of the narratives

from religion that you know in essence

we that's how you have to improvise and

see the filters that the Muslim who use

and like that's why Muslim woman who may

cover her hair a Muslim man who may grow

a beard these are not reasons because

it's like this kind of ridiculous type

of blind slavery we really understand

that the only way to free yourself from

the shackles of the inthermo nature of

social pressure because with social

animals of the very fact they didn't

choose your birthday ethnicity or even

your own gender you free yourself from

these shackles by what we call a

buddhaya a servanthood to the divine

reality so so why is it sensible for a

woman to be covered up and not a man

well I am covered no you're not it's no

really a bag okay look that's a

different question I'm going to get into

the more the moral judgments and certain

traditions because at the end of the day

we were

and by the way there are all the Islamic

I mean I you know I if you want me to

offend other religions I'm have no I'm

not saying that curse but someone who is

rationalizing incest doesn't have no

more high ground to point the finger I

would say women I mean and the other

point and the other point no no but let

me finish let me finish let me finish

let me complete the sentence I'm sure

you wouldn't go I didn't finish them let

me make my point potentially so no

actually potentially yeah but not

actually that was my point which you

misunderstood so the point I'm trying to

say cross the cross is this is that you

know these pointing the finger are the

traditions where is your ontological

basis for an objective moral value like

this you know in fact is it objectively

wrong that she's wearing a bag what is

it objectively moral or wrong and how is

it objectively wrong I asked if it's

sensible okay is it sensible and I am

and so my question to you is it seems to

me that given the fact that I happen to

view women and men as you know we have

we have differences in your agenda of

coarseness but in it but in every other

sense we're equal human beings and in

fact in many senses as you know their

advantages and disadvantages when we

make moral judgment when I use the word

sensible for other times we make I don't

I don't talk unlike you I don't talk

about morals because I try and in this

sense the question before us was not is

atheism moral whereas Islam moral it

says it's sensible and when people act

so why have you spent 25 minutes

pointing the finger and making moral

judgments rather than well they're

trying to do with my argument for a blog

post if you thought were all judgment

about your in misinterpretation of

whether infinity is allowed in physics I

didn't make a moral I never said that I

made a I never said that I said he makes

sense in physics because you need the

mathematics to correspond to physical

reality I don't disagree with that I am

saying or you need the mathematics to

correspond to physical realities that we

just said of course isn't reality

conferences are going to learn a lot

from your work actually was quite

interesting you said

even in your book I think is page 81 you

said that essentially you know there's

the maths and I need to improve my

physics to ensure it's in line with the

math and interestingly no I need to

improve my math to insurance in line

with reality okay good so what is the

evidence of experiment yes good so if my

math doesn't agree with the evidence of

experiment then I changed my man that's

why I think and I'd build a straw man

you made a conclusion new book you said

this is why you can't have an infinite

anything no you said that I can't have

an infinite anything let me find it for

you

and by the way if I did I was wrong one

second no not that honorable that is

honorable that's honorable no that is

honorable I admit about these arguments

as you quote people as if what they say

matters but the great thing about

science is there are no authorities I

agree there are no scientific

authorities everyone can be wrong and we

all are that is honorable that is under

whoa I have to claim to be including

Benedict before he stopped being Pope

yeah yeah one second of it unless I

could just just bear with me he wanted

it here it's here somewhere

now this is good this is good okay so

here we go infinity is not a pleasant

quantity however at least as far as

physicists are concerned and we try to

avoid it whenever possible clearly

clearly the energy of empty space or

anything else for that matter cannot be

physically infinite no you said sorry or

anything else for that matter energy of

anything where's that there the energy

of empty space or the energy of anything

else you're reading another book now

well Mohammad may not be here to talk

about the cran but I'm here to talk

about my book you don't even know your

book and my book says y'all I repeat yes

do that repeat maybe I should change

into Arabic so you understand it but the

point is the energy of empty space or

the energy of anything else cannot be

infinite oh okay okay okay good so

really it's suggestive of my point no

sorry it didn't say space can you get

your sign by the way it didn't they say

space

it didn't say space cannot be infinite

or time cannot be infinite because they

perfectly well can okay good but there's

another point you make wait wait wait

wait the other point is so I mean you're

making a big mistake to try and talk no

I will I'll be happy to you laughs be

happy to show me what you said if I

misquote listen listen first across I

could only read your words and you say

or anything else for that matter means

or anything else but I know I should I

know but but okay just ask also there's

a context now but when it comes to

religion there is no content when it

comes to physics as a Content fair

enough I agree I agree I agree professor

Krauss but listen to this what you have

to understand is this you don't do you

agree that the universe started at a

finite time ago do I agree yes you made

that point eight point seven two billion

years ago yes it's as far back as we can

go to about the first million 10 to the

minus 43 or something to change directly

we know it to about a millionth of a

millionth of a second okay exactly so

that I said was suggested suggestive

evidence for my deductive reasoning okay

well we're suggestive evidence for the

Rigveda akhenaten yeah I know let's

carry on now it's just as beautiful it

was I agree I agree but then I said but

since we now we have the best possible

explanation which is an uncreated

creator oh there is a cause that was not

caused because I gave you all the

logical explanation this is the point

you should be a physics yes but you're

nothing is it really like nothing no

space no time our universe didn't exist

so there's no is no quantum foam

there was nothing where our universe

existed there was no space and no time

everything we see this room so when did

not exist when your friend V Lincoln

comments on that once again so when so

when your friend Alexander Vilenkin

who's a renowned cosmologist good friend

a good friend I mean I've read some of

his works it goes way behind me here I

have to do that you know what yeah you

know what

in fact Alex Vilenkin as you read my

book as I did in fact he schooled me

because yes it did oh yeah that was very

interesting about a creation of space

from no space yes I agree

okay recently he has mentioned that

there is a space your temple battery

right no who has he said well he's I

mean you know we can talk about the

details of the instant on that he

described it yes okay great but my main

point is that this evidence is

suggestive of an evidence that is what I

would call far more strongly has great

epistemic value and I'm going to end on

this because it has greater Pacific

value because as you admitted the

inductive method doesn't lead to certain

conclusions whereas the deductive method

leads to certain Tina you can't get it

all the time but no if the premise is

something wrong I agree but Krauss if

the premises are sound and the logic is

valid it still certain you still have to

prove to me you but craft you profess

across you still have to prove to me

that the deductive logic I used is

unsound

or not valid and you haven't done that

okay don't think I have I do okay

I'm really sorry to interrupt you

professor Krauss Hamza you're going at

it hammer and tongs but there's a whole

bunch of guys out there who want to sort

of have a say okay

okay guys settle down we're gonna get

the first question right now okay my

first question is to professor Krauss

and this is just to sort out the sort of

the whole thing we're talking about I

just opened up your page and it says

nothing is something nothing is

something no and my mum asked my second

question now your whole book is based on

mathematics and mathematics as you know

is based on deduction okay and you use

mathematics throughout your book and you

say deductive yes okay let me ask my

question my first question was you said

nothing is something as soon as you open

the book secondly you said deductive

method deduction deduction doesn't work

and maths is based upon deduction no no

you said it in the opening deduction

doesn't work and your book is full of

mathematics and deduction mathematics is

based upon deduction so how do you

especially a good introduction to

logical fallacies I like catchy phrases

and when I said nothing is something in

the it's in that it's a chapter title my

point which many philosophers don't

understand and I guess of anyway is that

nothing is a physical quantity it's not

a philosophical quantity it's not an

imaginary quantity nothing in physics is

the absence of something so therefore to

understand what nothing is you first has

to ask the question what is something

and to do that requires a lot of work

it's required all the work of the 20th

century of a lot of bright people

experimentalists and physicists so what

I tried to do is explain what we mean by

something so that people could actually

learn what you mean by the absence of

something I tried to be very clear and

accurate so it was just in fact since I

wasn't trying to convince people of

anything I was just trying to explain it

the point is in physics nothing is the

absence of something

understand what the absence of something

is you have to describe you have to you

have to know what something is to know

what the absence of that thing is first

secondly mathematics is mathematics

you're absolutely right but physics

isn't mathematics I did a degree in

mathematics and I did degree in physics

I learned that wasn't a mathematician

and more importantly I learned many of

my the best mathematician colleagues of

mine word physicists because the

universe the way physics works is that

we make mathematical model these models

of reality but we don't decide that

they're right we say in fact I do it all

the time and most of them are wrong I

sit at that on a good day

trying to make a mathematical model that

explains reality they go out and test it

and 99.99% of the time it's wrong

because that's the way science works if

it didn't work that way anyone could do

it so it's not inductive in the sense

the mathematics is a useful language in

fact it's the only useful language to

describe nature as far as we can tell

but it doesn't we don't decide

mathematics can describe an infinite

number of universes you know you can

write mathematical descriptions of an

infinite number of universes most of

them are in our universe the way we

determine if they're our universe is we

go out and do experiment science is

experimental without experiment pure

thought leads nowhere if you lock the

particle physicists in a room and asked

her to come up with a theory of reality

without any experimental observation

she'd come up with the wrong answer okay

you didn't actually answer the question

there just just to reiterate cuz you

didn't answer yeah you said deduction

doesn't work okay no no no yes you said

in opening your book okay let me just

repeat the questions you didn't

understand the first time right you said

deduction doesn't work and your book has

mathematics and what I want to ask you

is fine I with you okay what is

deduction that's my question what is

deduction do you even know what

deduction is because I studied

mathematics at university I don't think

you know what it means you know what is

deduction you know you know what yeah

let me just say I know let me just say

let me just say this okay you can make

definitions of things I can try and

figure out how the universe works

I'll make progress and you'll sit here

okay thanks very much

next question please the Quran but where

is the LRC equivalent in terms of Islam

where's that what is the alert C

equivalent Large Hadron Collider ok in

Islam yes organized I mean wouldn't it

be a better idea just to study the Quran

and and come out with these results ok

and when can we see this good questions

first point the first point is that

essay that was written wasn't to show

that the Quran gives science if you read

the essay

it basically says the Quran is very

general and most places concerning

science quite ambiguous now in Islamic

theology these verses are weak or

teleological therefore specific end just

to make you think like only frankly only

someone really silly he's gonna think

you're gonna find quantum physics and

embryology in a holy book that's that's

not the that's not the divine that's not

the will of the creator yeah but it's

not a scientific book anyone's like I

said to be he was a theologian and he

said look this book the Quran is there

to make you think about the most

important questions about life man life

in the universe who are my whose are my

why am I for whom are my these

existential questions and yes thank you

ok so the point the point I am trying to

make it from the embryology perspective

is to show not that the Quran is

scientific per se but that its language

is not representative of a 7th century

science that was my main point so it's

got nothing to do with the fact sorry no

but why should they be my main yeah well

in some cases there is but not in terms

of here are the details it's more like

you know the unique thing about the

chronic discourse for example when it

talks about natural phenomena yogi

present a word for example and that word

who have a scope of meaning and you

could check this meaning up for yourself

and interestingly it's an ally is

aligned with past errors and future

accuracies as well which is very

interesting so yeah but I would argue

that in some cases that you do see

future accuracies however I don't

believe let me let me make my point my

argument for the Koran is not a

scientific one because I believe science

as proseccos admitted and really didn't

answer somehow was that inductive the

inductive method doesn't give you

certainties so we believe the Quran we

can prove deductively and it tells us to

do the science to see how things work we

may be wrong you may be right

so it'd be only erroneous to say that

something that is deductive can be

proven by something as speculative or

inconclusive and this is why I empathize

with you the current trend in our modern

or we record our propagation of islam is

heavily reliant on science but we have

to understand about scientists that's

why i wrote the essay on how we

misunderstood evolution i don't deny the

science of evolution i just go to modern

academics on the philosophy of science

and there are issues like the problem of

hard or weak empiricism the problem of

induction falsification and so forth so

from that perspective I think you've

misunderstood that the point of the

paper but I hope I love scientific ideas

gravity or quantum mechanics we make new

drugs based on it in fact the evidence

of evolution makes evolution of fact ok

I even addressed that yeah and I tried

to read it and it seemed to me that you

were suggesting wasn't but anyway that I

made misunderstood it so I'm willing to

I'm willing to agree that I may have

misunderstood but that's the lesson I

was getting ok maybe you Chris have a

coffee often ok we're gonna go to the ok

we go to the next question please thank

you for the very emotive debate my

question is to professor Lawrence Krauss

now go on anyway first let's not

conflate science of atheism but firstly

let's not conflate science of atheism as

we would all agree that science doesn't

logically entail atheism it is

methodological inu true therefore my

question is this science being a

empirical method based on observation

experimentation can never answer

metaphysical questions such as the

existence of God so then the it would

arise how do you as an atheist maintain

your position because you've said for

example empiric speaking you can't say

God exists it doesn't exist

rationally deductive you already ruled

out therefore how can you rationally

justify your belief how can you say it's

common sense and nonsensical please

thank you very much let me clarify this

I again emphasize that atheism is not a

belief okay it's not a belief as a

scientist I don't believe anything as a

scientist I don't believe anything I if

you will use the word belief scientists

shouldn't use the word belief there are

things that are more likely and less

likely in fact in the spirit of humza

it's if science can say nothing with

absolute certainty it could say

something is very very likely or

something is very very unlikely based on

the evidence of experience and testing I

can't see you but I know you're there

okay

and so I find easier to talk to a person

okay and no no no stay there stay there

I can see you now so so the question is

what is more likely

that's all atheists are saying and

they're atheists are saying look the

first thing they're saying I mean people

who claim they're atheists and by the

way you know most scientists don't think

enough about God to even know if they're

atheists cuz gods are relevant God never

comes up in any scientific conference in

any discussion anywhere it doesn't

because in fact we're just trying to

figure out how the universe works you're

absolutely right also to the fact that I

want to stress one more time that's

science and I may slightly differ with

my friend Richard Dawkins about this I

don't think a lot science does not

require atheism and the proof of that is

empirical since I believe empirical

proof I have several colleagues of mine

who are very good scientist or an

atheist therefore since they're very

good scientists and they're also

not a this science doesn't require

atheism now people can hold

contradictory ideas at the same time

that's one of the reasons but science

can never disprove purpose in the

universe all we can ask is given the

evidence of observation do I think it is

more likely that there's a personal God

that cares about this random planet

around a random galaxy in the middle of

400 billion galaxies in the universe in

which everything we see is just 1% of

the whole universe

you get get rid of us in all the

galaxies and everything the universe

would be largely the same we're a bit of

cosmic pollution it seems ridiculous to

imagine for me based on everything I see

and my common sense to imagine the

universe was created for me that's all

okay thank you

professor it's good of the next question

hello mr. Krauss and Salam alaikum mr.

sort sis very good talk I just have a

question for Hamza so you started off

talking about you know infinity and I

mean a lot these arguments were sort of

William Lane Craig type arguments who by

the way Fox News lots now my question is

we've got a guy here who's written 300

books on astronomy cosmology whatever

and we we I mean there is a lot of talk

about Islam about the Quran having

scientific evidence behind it

cosmologically as well why do we ask

these questions why don't we say well I

don't know you said that you don't know

so why not ask him he's there I mean why

not this is this is a forum for

conversation why don't we have well I

didn't hear one time except for when you

mentioned quantum vacuum where he

explained to you what quantum vacuum is

like other than that I didn't hear

anything so I'm really interested as to

why that conversation didn't happen in

here

but I could do that in Starbucks or for

the leftist amongst you in another

coffee shop no no no this would be

attention to my argument it wasn't a key

premise yeah it was even reported

guarantee yeah it's a key well done so

Oh Oh my point was it was just

suggestive you might use if you remove

that argument you still have my

deductive argument that hasn't been a

know what I'm saying is then why did you

use the linguistic argument why not this

like because I just I don't hold the

view that the scientific I mean per se

is strong enough to become it right so

he has to be linguistic no there's many

others as historical there's numericals

I could give them because it could be a

real difference and it should just

represent our fundamental differences of

course you don't believe that your

beliefs should conform to the evidence

of reality no of course not okay no but

you just even agreed that science itself

which we love

and we think is a mercy from the divine

reality to use that has that has

correlated versus indicate we must use

reality and and be empirical you've

assumed that that that empiricism itself

would lead to an understanding of

reality absolutely but you you agreed

that's not the absolutes I've always

said plausible likely unlikely that's

the way that's my and the whole question

here is what's more sensible and the

point is once again I said empirically a

thousand religions you're a thiol

atheist for nine hundred ninety nine of

them I'm just an atheist for one but

this is precisely my point yeah

why would I therefore use an empirical

inductive method to form beliefs that I

believe are certain that would be a

production of me so what I do is if I

believe something is so certain as the

existence of the divine and the Americas

nature of the Koran I'm not going to use

an inductive method which is speculative

and probabilistic which you would even

agree ranges from 0 to 99 percent I

would have to rely heavily on what you

would call other methods epistemic route

to knowledge such as deduction

well then the unsensible and here's the

quick thinking what have said

extraordinary claims require

extraordinary evidence and the claim

that you're absolutely certain of the

truth that you that you personally are

absolutely certain of the truth is a

remarkable claim no and the evidence no

man it's not straw man I'm absolutely

certain of very basic truths and this is

called epistemic foundation is it I

don't have that well you obviously have

a presumption that induction works

that's the truth let's presume there's

more questions as well okay let's go all

right my question is for hamsa my

question is I just want to clear

something up before I go on do you think

that logic and science are two separate

paths to truth because professor Krauss

here is taking the scientific approach

you've been taking a logic approach do

you believe they're mutually exclusive

argument that is premises rest on

induction so that's fine and an

inductive argument by definition is

empirical by nature but the point I'm

trying to say is there is a difference

between induction and deduction that is

a clear distinction well sure exactly so

the point is if we do have a violin

sound deductive argument then for God's

sake let's address it let us say oh you

guys put women in bags or you you

scratch your ear on a Sunday or you

don't clean your earwax all these kind

of random red herrings that were coming

along so that's the point is to ask

empirically what seems to me that wasn't

the question my question was that if you

think logic is you said you didn't think

it was independent but do you think that

your your premises because that's what

your arguments rest on are informed by

empirical evidence that some of them are

supported by the majority of them are

deductive themselves okay next question

that's what makes a doctor very strong

if you have premises that are deductive

and the conclusion is sound and valid

therefore it's a deductive argument so

that makes it a very strong argument and

that's why I said it would be irrational

to take

induction over deduction if you have a

deductive argument

if you don't test because you know them

conceptually and metaphysically and

philosophically just like that woman

knew to drown her four kids but okay no

no okay no no let me address this

question sorry

the interesting thing is your very

statement is a metaphysical statement it

could be translated metaphysically for

example induction is the only way the

only method to use to try and establish

on all reality that statement itself is

self-defeating it can even be proven by

its but by empiricism is an inductive

statement so the point is I give an

example it's like it's like you have

almost it's like you have this almost

crudo plane to know what's valid just by

knowing no but but no but you have to in

that very statement in itself because

you it's almost like you're presenting

this crude scientism or logical

positivism that stopped using words okay

okay oh but when you use words it's

great when I use words I can't do a

scientist em is and we define it for you

it is the assertion the science is the

only way to form conclusions about

reality okay that statement itself is

one self-defeating because science can't

prove that statement secondly science

itself that statement itself is is it's

flawed because science can't prove

mathematical truths also it can't prove

ontological truth it can't prove more

truth historical truths if you study

epistemology sorry okay okay let me make

my point how do we know aristotle

existed there's lots of evidence okay

let me give you a piece of evidence I

know we know him through Plato okay no

it's highly likely yes okay yeah but let

me make my point even anyone studying

epistemology which is the study of

knowledge and belief yeah you know that

the majority of your opinions in this

room as well is based on non empirical

evidence it's based let me finish like I

understand that could be wrong yeah but

your solid may not have anybody missing

a point I'm trying to show you this

other rich to knowledge sir which is

such is so testimony for example

authentic and valley testimony oh my

goodness
you really believe in testimony is proof

of

do you really believe that but but

burgers across the holes did you really

believe that I say let's not dig a hole

for us all when did something it happen

go to the berkeley website on the

scientific method it says one of the

majority asked web sites i just do okay

what's very very great well do this

science then listen to the science the

berkeley website says the key part of

the scientific method is is also the

workings of other scientists that usual

test and you don't trust yeah and you

repeat their experiments because you

don't trust yes i agree that wait wait

wait but there's a lot of science don't

trust other people excuse me sir there's

a lot of science that requires testimony

yeah what lots of science what okay you

an example have you done every single

experiment concerning evolution no so

you believe it's true thank you very

much i think based on the evidence of my

experience yes and everything i see in

the world around me that evolution is

highly likely okay that's what i would

call up so so so so when you had to

interview unbelievably highly likely oh

look I believe in I believe in gender

equality and what the only woman wants

to answer the question in the room right

now she's standing there let's do it I

[Applause]

just wanted to make common about the

incident that happened before this event

began I acknowledge about the brother

who couldn't find a seat where he was

coming from but and I believe that he

has a right to sit where he wanted to

but there has been some misunderstanding

firstly Islam makes it very clear that

quality is incredibly important and that

no black man for example is superior to

a white man and vice versa but the issue

here was not one of superiority as no

one imposed segregation upon him he was

allowed to sit with the ladies at the

back and he was

also allowed to sit at the front with

females but if some of us is some of the

ladies chosen to sit at a distance from

the men why must he impose himself upon

us if I sat in a restaurant with my

friends away from men would it be

appropriate for him to join me at my

table too and I'm basically offended by

his disrespect for my values the point

is as I said I don't think people should

be uncomfortable ok and and they should

move if they're uncomfortable however

however you chose to come to an event

that wasn't segregated if you felt

uncomfortable by that I think you have

the right not to be here and watch it on

video but you chose to do that and

therefore if you know I'm and I realize

that you may be uncomfortable saying

then and I respect that you shouldn't be

forced to do that but if you choose to

go to a hockey game or a or what do they

call your football game which is really

soccer then you you know your subject

yourself to the social conventions of

the time so I'm I respect your desires

and I don't want you to be for us to do

that in fact you should have moved away

if it was offensive or that but but the

point is that this was a non-segregated

event and you knew that coming in and

you therefore were subject to the

possibility that you might be near

someone and I and and that was your

choice thank you very much thank

okay thank you very much thank you very

much you guys masha'Allah oh sorry I've

been sitting on the fence the whole

night you see okay it's painful sitting

on fences eyed hamza and professor

Krauss you know I think you guys have

been amazing tonight don't you think but

you but you still gotta convince the

audience up there so you've got two

minutes each because I just think the

debate format it's a stupid format

forgive me

Minh to the kind of interaction actually

there's been some positives that have

come out of the fact of Amazon I've

talked that have been much more positive

than when people make these rhetorical

long statements and trying to find

things and try and sneak the other

person into some logical contradiction

it's just it's just not good for for

education my intent and I'm sure I've

offended people here my intent was not

to offend

I always offend and I offend some my

scientific colleagues too my tip is just

to raise questions and encourage people

to think about issues and for that I

hope I've I hope just that some of the

statements I've made will cause people

to think and you're and indeed my whole

point is that given access to

information and I believe you should get

access to information about the world

really works which is why I write

scientific books and I speak because I

think these are some of those beautiful

ideas people have ever come up with that

we shouldn't be afraid of them we

shouldn't fear them we shouldn't view

them as if in fact if they offend our

beliefs that's a good thing because it

means our beliefs are wrong and that as

I say to students all the time is the

greatest gift we can have changing our

minds and learning is what's produced

the progress that allows this form to

happen that allows these video cameras

to be recording things so I just hope

that as I hope I am willing to change my

beliefs or change my mind in the

presence of evidence and get information

that I hope that some of the thing

as I've said it's spurred your thinking

and I certainly don't want to convert

you into anything and so thank you for

listening

oh yeah you know what something inside

me for a new view like this because when

I watch first across although I disagree

with him I love his style and my dad

would love your style oh it's like I

don't K I'm gonna be me get over it yeah

so I do respect that I do respect that

and the other thing I do yes we're the

same that was like almost an explosion

here and on Tomek levels there I mean

interestingly we have a lot in common we

both like Star Trek so you know I know

it's not real yeah I give him that one I

give him that one I give him that one

okay good

right so first and foremost I think

there was a discussion on the definition

of a miracle I presented I think maybe

we should have more useful discussion on

maybe the the coherent definition that

we presented concerning the literary

form is unique again I think there was a

misunderstanding aesthetic reception

uniquely to reform and the computer

analysis that was brought as an example

wasn't based on a whole chapter which is

based on the intimate ability of the

chronic discourse also I think we we

brought forth a deductive argument to

show that the financial of the universe

and therefore it couldn't have combined

nothing once it was in a state of

non-existence and it was brought into

being it couldn't self create it

couldn't be created by something else

that was created because the absurdity

of the infinite regress therefore it

makes sense that it was created by

something uncreated of cause but some

less uncaused and it's in line with our

definition of causality which is

something that produces effect which

allows asymmetric causality also when we

talked about the infinite we talked

about the quantitative infinite look not

the qualitative infinite and I think the

examples our professor gave or based on

axioms of commences in the mathematical

realm of discourse rather than in

reality so that's what I have to say I

don't think the key premise is of my

argument will add rest and I think it

shows the

a city of Islam from that perspective

because if it was so wrong and so bruh

bitch and so nonsensical we would have

had a strong counter argument for that

perspective but this is going to be

unaddressed until the day of judgement I

believe I think what we all have to

learn is that you know what we can't sit

on a table we can't speak together we

may be angry and rhetoric and by the way

I so apologize if I offended anyone

especially professor Krauss I did say

things that I shouldn't have said for a

highly-respected

yeah for highly respected academic like

himself so we have to humble ourselves

for his achievements and some of the

words I used or no appropriate even

though they may have sounded nice

rhetorically but that's a different

issue the point is you know at the end

of the day let's be human let's connect

with each other without presuppositions

and that's very hard to do but the only

way to do that is just really divorcing

our drama and our presuppositions when

we try to engage with someone and that's

what we teach in our courses all the

time engage with the human being not

with it not just with his beliefs or

your perception of who he is we didn't

quite get there today but you know what

it's the beginning god bless you

[Music]

[Music]