Ok. Thanks for answering. Enjoy the video Brothers n Sisters.

Hamza beat him badly. Every point, Lawrence Krauss contradicted himself on.

Of course, I can refute Hamza's arguments here if you want.

http://www.historynet.com/muhammad-the-w...rophet.htm
Muhammad: The Warrior Prophet

"In the space of a single decade he fought eight major battles, led eighteen raids, and planned another thirty-eight military operations where others were in command but operating under his orders and strategic direction."

I can't imagine why Osama bin Laden thinks Islam is a religion of the sword, when Muhammad is so obviously a man of peace.

I'd like the Muslimguy to explain why allah is so f*cking impotent? I could wipe my ass daily on pictures of the prophet mohammad, call allah a galactic pig rapist, and heat my house on piss soaked Qur'ans, yet if no psychotic muslim believers take actions of revenge against me for this, then absolutely nothing happens. Is there any insult one could make in private, away from his followers, that could goad allah into some of his old smitimg action?
Has allah become such a wuss that he can't stand up to anyone anymore without his army of madmen doing all of the coercion?

(March 30, 2013 at 11:10 pm)ThatMuslimGuy2 Wrote: P.S. The society is following both.incest and stabbing the eye.

---

I understand your premises to draw these conclusions but what society does this create where people can stab someone in the eye if they let them or cut there hand off or ear or nose.

A pretty decent society. Only the people that require mental help will be asking their friends to stab them in the eye.
Just because something is allowed, doesn't mean that everyone is going to do it. Pro-life people sometimes seem to think that pro-choice is really "Everyone must have an abortion." when that's not the case.

I only watched some of the debate, or some of one of the debates.

I don't understand how either of them represents either Islam or Atheism.

From what I remember I stopped watching the debate when it came to the argument about whether something can be actually infinite and I just thought it was too ridiculously boring to continue listening to.

First of all I don't even know if I agree with what kraus was saying because I find maths and physics of this kind so boring and unfathomable that I don't even really know what his argument is.

I've heard Hamza talk about how infinite regression makes no sense before but that's exactly the point atheists make against religion is that it makes no sense to say we are here so god made us, because then god is here so what made god? And I personally don't understand why it has to fall back to god just because we don't understand whatever made us.

Also I don't think anyone has ever become a Muslim because they solved a mathematical problem and realized a+b x d = god exists and muhammad was definitely his messenger who split the moon in half and rode across the desert in a flying horse, so why are physics and maths being used to prove or disprove Islam all of a sudden?

Ok here comes my refutation of the first point.

First, God is said to have knowledge of the future which then becomes more then potential infinite but a real infinite.

2ndly, going to the room example, if there is infinite amount of universes, but each universe is finite, then you can remove a finite number of people from a universe, but over all still have infinite.

I would however off another proof against infinite regress. Suppose there was an infinite amount of robots next to each other, and none would move, unless the one beside it moved. The truth of the matter, is that none of them would start unless one started already.

Now cause and effect, it's as if everything is saying "I will not move unless there is something other then me in my current state that will move me" (this metaphoric).

So we can say there must be a first cause. However, I would say Hamza has a leap of faith to what that first cause is. It can very well be the universe at time zero.

The state of the universe at time zero can very well be the cause that will cause motion.

I feel Kraus meant to say that when he said there doesn't need to be a cause at time zero, but really, there needs to be a cause, and it's possibly the universe at time zero, and you can't go before time zero.

Now this refutes the crux of his argument.

As for Quran. Yes it's unique. But it doesn't mean it's derived from other then Arabic because it's a different type of Arabic. And even if it was, it would not prove it was Divine.

Therefore unique implies it's divine, has not been proven.

I myself realize Quran is unique because I speak Arabic (unlike Hamza) from direct experience and not just based on authority, but, I also know there is contradictions and logical problems in the Quran.

It's refreshing to hear somebody acknowledge that there are errors. I respect that.

It leads me to a question: how do you take it as the divine word of God, when it is erroneous in places?

(March 31, 2013 at 10:46 am)Joel Wrote: It leads me to a question: how do you take it as the divine word of God, when it is erroneous in places?

Well I stopped believing it was the Divine word of God when I realized the some of the errors I found were not solvable (after much discussion with Muslims).

(March 31, 2013 at 10:49 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 31, 2013 at 10:46 am)Joel Wrote: It leads me to a question: how do you take it as the divine word of God, when it is erroneous in places?

Well I stopped believing it was the Divine word of God when I realized the some of the errors I found were not solvable (after much discussion with Muslims).

But you're still a Muslim?