Adam Deen is an international public speaker on Muslim Apologetics.
A former Islam channel presenter who has been working in the field of Muslim apologetics for almost a decade. He has contributed to debates on issues ranging from religious philosophy and theology. His work draws on contemporary philosophy to defend Islam in debates. He has regularly appeared on mainstream TV.
Friday, 26 November 2010
Debate - Does Allah exist?
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Very nice arguments Adam Deen! Larvor actually disappointed me...all he did was try to disprove you, he really had no good points of his OWN. Nice job though. The Design argument is the best one in my mind. Every desgin needs to have its designer PERIOD
As salaamu alaykum A few things I'd like to say & ask 1. can you explain how Brendon dismissed infinity as a well understood and utilised "value" in calculus (and possibly other math) "well understood my mathematicians and scientists"? I would really like to grasp his idea, so as to know whether he purposely obfuscated his argument in double meanings or that he could really believe his own claim that one step straddled infinities.
my second thought is hopefully a useful contribution to the debate.
Brendon suggested it was presumptuous and ill fated for religious people to view their religion or God through science or rationality, I think he even implied that somehow we were usurping God's power.
My response to this 'general' argument would be longwinded and soupy, but trying to boil it down (feel free to edit this comment to boil it down more) I would discuss like this: Albert Einstein hated Heisenberg's uncertainty principle because it led to an imprecise model of the universe (or a precise model of an imprecise universe) which led him to his famous saying "Does God play dice?" The fault that has crept into both Einstein's and Brendon's thinking (or at least Brendon's thinking about our thinking) is that we are capable of piercing all the mysteries of creation from our armchair, and/or conclude God's intentions. As Muslims we cannot fall into this trap, we know that the creator knows his creation intimately and is in absolute control of it through his intention while we stumble to illuminate 'the fishbowl of creation' from the inside with our crude tools of Math, Science and Philosophy. From this position we do not presume to see what Allah sees, nor to realise the purpose of any component of creation. Nor then can we judge the perfection of any part of creation (such as the width of a woman's pelvis) as we are only aware of aspects of the designed purpose such that Allah chose to make apparent to us. (Even a discussion on our personal perception/appreciation of beauty and asthetics is hampered by our position 'inside the experiment' where we continually muddy and soil the waters we are trying to collect and measure). This does not mean we are incapable of observing and analysing creation (and even appreciating the beauty and excellence of creation), merely that we recognise our observations are limited and imperfect and that we are totally unable to percieve anything outside of creation, such as the attributes of the creator (except those attributes which are evident from our existance). To bring this back to Einstein and Heisenberg: just because we are wearing blurry glasses, dependant on reflection or refraction of photons to measure an objects position or trajectory with varying levels of inaccuracy, it does not mean God is likewise encumbered or uncertain. He does not require help of a single subatomic particle when he commands radioactive isotopes to decay, and so He surely does not require any assistance to KNOW the PRECISE location AND movement of any object He has created.
4 comments:
Very nice arguments Adam Deen! Larvor actually disappointed me...all he did was try to disprove you, he really had no good points of his OWN. Nice job though. The Design argument is the best one in my mind. Every desgin needs to have its designer PERIOD
As salaamu alaykum
A few things I'd like to say & ask
1. can you explain how Brendon dismissed infinity as a well understood and utilised "value" in calculus (and possibly other math) "well understood my mathematicians and scientists"?
I would really like to grasp his idea, so as to know whether he purposely obfuscated his argument in double meanings or that he could really believe his own claim that one step straddled infinities.
secondly I would like to make a comment
my second thought is hopefully a useful contribution to the debate.
Brendon suggested it was presumptuous and ill fated for religious people to view their religion or God through science or rationality, I think he even implied that somehow we were usurping God's power.
My response to this 'general' argument would be longwinded and soupy, but trying to boil it down (feel free to edit this comment to boil it down more) I would discuss like this:
Albert Einstein hated Heisenberg's uncertainty principle because it led to an imprecise model of the universe (or a precise model of an imprecise universe) which led him to his famous saying "Does God play dice?" The fault that has crept into both Einstein's and Brendon's thinking (or at least Brendon's thinking about our thinking) is that we are capable of piercing all the mysteries of creation from our armchair, and/or conclude God's intentions. As Muslims we cannot fall into this trap, we know that the creator knows his creation intimately and is in absolute control of it through his intention while we stumble to illuminate 'the fishbowl of creation' from the inside with our crude tools of Math, Science and Philosophy. From this position we do not presume to see what Allah sees, nor to realise the purpose of any component of creation. Nor then can we judge the perfection of any part of creation (such as the width of a woman's pelvis) as we are only aware of aspects of the designed purpose such that Allah chose to make apparent to us. (Even a discussion on our personal perception/appreciation of beauty and asthetics is hampered by our position 'inside the experiment' where we continually muddy and soil the waters we are trying to collect and measure). This does not mean we are incapable of observing and analysing creation (and even appreciating the beauty and excellence of creation), merely that we recognise our observations are limited and imperfect and that we are totally unable to percieve anything outside of creation, such as the attributes of the creator (except those attributes which are evident from our existance).
To bring this back to Einstein and Heisenberg: just because we are wearing blurry glasses, dependant on reflection or refraction of photons to measure an objects position or trajectory with varying levels of inaccuracy, it does not mean God is likewise encumbered or uncertain. He does not require help of a single subatomic particle when he commands radioactive isotopes to decay, and so He surely does not require any assistance to KNOW the PRECISE location AND movement of any object He has created.
What is infinity? can u decide the limit of it? and then argue of the infinit points of measure within that limit?
That seem to me like a magic trick, a way to delude people.
Post a Comment