[Transcribed from recording. Some words/sentences may be wrong. Cleaned up a little, fixed some mistakes and removed some editing marks - transcriber, 19 March 2013. Main speakers are (in order of appearance): Yusuf Chambers, Professor Lawrence M. Krauss, Hamza A. Tzortzis.]

Chambers: A world worth of information pured by the ITH, however IT and we seem to have failed to adequatedly answers-answer the most fundamental, of questions about life, our existence itself which is of course the main core area that we aim to address you tonight in this, uh, 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?" "Do I have a purpose?" Um, can we be certain about any of these uh, you know, these-these questions? And what- you know I asked a bishop, uh, "Whats the purpose of life?", and he said to me, go and do a theology degree. Right im not telling to go do a theology degree im asking you to sit here, in a debate for two hours with my two honourable guests over here, -

Krauss: (in background) You say its worth asking a bishop (?)

Chambers: Yeah, well, you know..

(audience laughs)

Chambers: Of course- he didn't know the answer, by the way, right,

(audience laughter)

Chambers: Um, thats another issue um,

(audience murmur)

Chambers: But what of course we can do to inform our decisions about this debate tonight is to use our reasoning, to use our mind, to use our intellect, and, really, to cross to have an open-mindset. Muslim, Non-muslim, christian, whatever you are, whatever you believe in, you should have an open mindset, and really go at this, with sincerity. Thats really--Im-Im just asking the aud- Im asking myself, first and foremost, right, cos that thats tough, being Irish-ex Irish catholic. Yes, ex, yeah. Uh-

Krauss: I didn't think (?) the Catholic church allows divorce.

Chambers: Oh, well, you know.. thats 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 you tend to reside on, okay, um, at the end of the night tha-you will be better informed about Atheism, and about Islam. Hopefully the world perspective, the world view of Islam and Atheism. Thats what its really all about. Tonight, what-hows it gonna-hows it gonna happen. Right, well, we're gonna have 25 minutes allotted for both speakers, although Im told thats gonna change as well-

Krauss: Yeah, (..)

Chambers: Okay, and then followed by a further 10 minutes, of, you know, sort of, uh coming back, and then another three minutes of coming back, although that might change, uh, Professor, right, and, after that, there will be, you know crossfire, and theres gonna be no heavy arms to be used live in this section,

(audience chuckle)

Chambers: uh, both of you, okay, that although I understand the tongue is alot more vicious than nuclear weapons. But, what we're effectively saying after that is you lovely people will get the opportunity to ask questions, as, uh uh uh you may make observations, hopefully ON the topics, right, on the topic that we're talking about, and then will be two minutes closing remarks, a little presentation after that and we will go home and we won't be out of here by 10 o' clock. Okay, right, so theres a couple of hours to go, and just to let you know, fire-fire exits, over there right at the back, over there and over here, and the assemble, the assembly point is in Gordon, uh square. Gordon, sq. yeah, Gordon square, okay. 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 uh we won't want any blood, or any fights, okay (chuckle), and im sure that you guys, you understand why im saying that. So today, our first speaker, okay, this has been agreed upon?

Krauss: No, I was told.

Chambers: Okay, good then. (...)

(Audience laughter)

Krauss: (...) I was (...)

Chambers: Will be, uh, our brother, uh, well it says brother, hes a brother in humanity, you're my brother in humanity, hes my brother in humanity, and in the faith of Islam-

Audience member: (loudly) TAKBIR!

Audience: (loudly) Allahu Akbar!

(audience laughter)

Chambers: Okay, (the meen, the meen?) are going great. Okay, so, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, of course hes actually Greek, not Pakistani, hes, you know, he, he-he in fact, is uh, you can see him a little from Pakistani, but anyway, um, hes a student of Islamic thought, a lecturer, a researcher for the Islamic Education Research Academy, and without further ado, I will call on him to give his piece.

(Clapping)

Tzortzis: Innalhamdillilah, wassalatu waassalamu Alarasulillah, to proceed, respected Professor Krauss, guests, brothers and sisters, friends, relatives, I greet you with the warmest Islamic greetings of peace, Assalamu Alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatu

Audience: Alaykum salam warahmatullahi wabarakatu (...)

Tzortzis: Which basically means may the peace and blessings of God be upon you all. Todays question, Islam or Atheism, which makes more sense. I would argue that if we use our reason, our rational faculties, we would definetely come to the conclusion that Islam makes more sense and im gonna 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. Now 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 question - 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 Russell said, "The universe is just there, and thats all. Its a brute fact." Even in Islamic history, as early as the 8th century we had philosophical naturalists known as the Dah'riyyah, 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- Though the infinite makes sense in the real world. Now the assertion of the universe having 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 how to do the calculation to get a finite answer. To highlight why the infinity or the infinite doesnt exist, take the following example into consideration. Imagine you have for example, an infinite number of Professor Krauss's in this room, and, if I were to take 5 Professor Krauss's away, how many do we have left? Well some mathematicians may say, well, we still have an infinite number of Professor Krauss's. Logicians will say, we have infinity minus five. But what stops me 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 leads to absurdities and contradiction. Take this other example into consideration. My distance between the distance, rather between myself and Professor Krauss. We can potentially split this distance into infinite parts, but can actually traverse the finite distance, which shows Aristotle, the Greek philosopher said, that the infinite is, potential, never actualised. In light of this, mathematicians Casman and Newman said, the infinite set does not exist, in the same sense that we say there are fish, in the sea. And this leads to our deductive argument, that for those who don't know deductive argument is a conclusion that necessarily follows from its premises and to deny a valid and 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 im not claiming to be a physicist, we have an established acclaimed academic amongst us so he can tell us the rest of the story, but what have cosmologists said, they have said for example Alexander Belankin, in his book, "Many Worlds in One", which I believe is a friend of Professor Krauss, he says, with 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 a beginning to the universe. Interestingly in Islamic thought, this has been discussed at length, and there is a unananimous conclusion that the universe is eternal, it began in the finite past, as the polymath theologian Ibn Taymir wrote in the 14th century his book, "As Safiriyyah", so whatever is besides God, it is all, Mahluk, all created, originated, coming to be after non-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 lets discuss these together, could the universe be created via nothing? Well first and foremost, 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 doesn't our definition make sense. This is because we have deductively argued that the universe began, and therefore it was once 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 by 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. Its never gonna be three (chuckle), its zero. Therefore the universe could not have come into existence via nothing, as PJ's Wartons publication about time explains, If there is anything we can find inconceivable, it is that something could arise from nothing. Lets 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 theres 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 universe, Universe 1, being as a result of another universe, Universe 2, and Universe 2 being as a result of another universe, Universe 3, and this went on ad infinitum, we would never have the universe today. Hence the Islamic philosopher and thinker Dr. Jaafar Idris, summarises this point, he says there will be no series of actual order (?). Not only a series of nonexistence, the fact however, is that there are existence around us, therefore the ultimate form must be something other than temporal closets. So I would argue that the final possible explanation which is, the universe, was created by something uncreated is the most rational explanation. And philosopher Ibrahim Lahir (?) made an appendix to Professor Anthony in book, There Is A God, explains this conclusion in a simple, but faultable (?) way. He writes, "Now, clearly, theists and atheists can agree on one thing. If anything exists at all, there must be something preceeding it, that always existed. How could this eternally existing reality come to be? The answer is, it never came to be. It always existed. Think of this. The gods, 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 existed, it doesn't mean Allah, Buddha, Jesus, Yahweh, existed. Thats a leap of faith. We leave that to the atheists.

(audience laughter)

Tzortzis: The point im trying to make here, is that if we continue, if we continue with our rtational argumentation, using our akl, akl meaning intellect in the arabic language as the Quran, the Quranic discourse says, Afala Ta'kiloon, "Do 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 hes uncreated. Number two he must be transcendent as Ibn Taymir, the 14th century philosopher/theologian said, he must be distinct and disjoint from the universe, for example if I were to create this lecturn, Do I become the lecturn? No. Number three, this uncreated creator must have a will, because if its eternal, and brought into existence a finite effect that began, like the universe, he must have CHOSE the universe to come into existence, and the choice indicates a will, and the will indicates can have a relationship with sentient beings in the universe. Number four, he has to be powerful, he created the atom for example, if you split the atom - ask Professor Krauss what happens.

(audience chuckle)

Tzortzis: Fifth point, it must be perpetually KNOWING, because if its eternal, and it established, laws like the law of gravity, it implies (something will give her??), so therefore we could make the inference that its perpetually knowing or perpetaully intelligent, because its eternal, and created laws, in the universe. Finally, it must be One. If we use the rational principle of Occam's Razor, and by the way many people don't understand Occam's Razor I think Professor Krauss doesn't understand Occam's Razor either from when I read his book, but he could debate that with me later. Occam's Razor is not about physical forces, by the way, which has been misconstrued as a strawman in the Crowskian (?) 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 may deal with most of the questions, but considering 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, its 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 or three or 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, he is unique and hes transcendent. As the Quran says in the 112th 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 onto my next argument, I really want to have a nuanced discussion, a very nuanced discussion. Which means if someone offers to talk to you you have to talk to them back, and if, a little bit (?) offended but I try and explain a child between a housewarmer in this room, for us to have a chat and he wants to have a chat with me which I think is not very nice (??) -

(audience chuckle)

Tzortzis: But thats uh, thats uh, thats another story. And I want to do it with some contention so we transcend this kind of, what I would call, Atheist cliches. So whats the first Atheist cliche? The first atheist cliche, I call it, the Professor Krauss "Nothing" cliche.

(audience chuckle)

Tzortzis: And, if you read his book, you will see, that Professor Krauss is a highly acclaimed academic, I mean I am nothing compared to him, (pause) -

Krauss: Thats true.

(audience erupts into laughter)

Tzortzis: He wait, wait, wait, wait your turn (?), by the way him making a statement is not an argument I don't know why you're clapping like somebody's obedient slave -

(audience cheering and clapping)

Tzortzis: Please, please, I have a time. To keep.

(audience laughter)

Tzortzis: So, in his book - which I really liked his book, I like his style, I like his rhetoric - he wrote in his book "A Universe From Nothing", he said that, nothing, is Nothing with italics. And essentially what he's trying to say, hes trying to change the label "Nothing" which in the English language, is a universal negation. But hes saying Nothing is actually Something which is a quantum reality. And this is quite bizarre, and thats why you have to study philosophy because you need to make conceptual distinctions, for example imagine I was in the hallway and I said "(accent) No I met nobody, (no accent) and they gave me directions to this room!"

(audience laughter)

Tzortzis: Or imagine if for example, yesterday, my wife made a great lunch, and it was nothing!

(audience laughter)

Tzortzis: You know, Nothing tastes great with a bit of whipped cream!

(audience laughter)

Tzortzis: I mean does this make any sense?

Krauss: (quietly) It does.

Tzortzis: And, Professor Krauss who showed (?) Nothing is actually Something he also says in his book, in page 80, "Our universe would then re-collapse inward to a point, returning to the Quantum Hades from which our-all existence may have begun", and his own friend Alexander Belenkin said recently, "Vacuum is very different from Nothing. Its 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 stress the word "could" here, because we may yet have enough empirical information to resolve this question unambiguously, so I do respect what hes trying to do, but you would never take an inductive argument, over deductive one. Only someone intellectually challenged would do that in my humble opinion.

(audience chuckle)

Tzortzis: The second contention is that things can come into being without any cause, you have a s- you have a quantum vacuum, a quantum reality, and there are some subatomic events that appear, without known (?) causes. I believe we have a strong defeator to this argument and it concerns perceptions and it rests on the Kant argument. Now, can alter my perception in-in this room, I could see this very handsome young man, I can see the camera man, I can see the wall. I could also reverse that perception. But if my wife were to start walking down this auditorium, I couldn't help but see her front before I see her back, and I couldn't reverse that perception. Now the very fact that I know when I can alter my perceptions and when I can't, and when I can reverse my perceptions and when I can't, is because we have an innate concept of causal links and causal connections. To reject that base on empiricism or empirical reality is equivalent and tantamount of actually rejecting the perception itself, its like shooting yourself, in the foot. This is why the philosopher John Cottingham in his book Rationalism said, "But on Kant's argument, who would not be able to recognise that event in the first place, unless there were a 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 pre-supposes an understanding of causal necessity." So, these are the cliches, lets 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 s-psychological disposition. And the way the Quran achieves this is by asking questions. Wa Fee Umm Fusi Kum Afa La Tuf Siroon. "And in themselves, do they not see?" Talks about the physiological reality, the psychological reality, even referring to things like consciousness. This is why Professor of Philosophy, Shabbir Akhtar in his book, The Quran And The Secular Mind: A Philosophy Of Islam, he describes what the (?) Quran is trying to say in these verses. He says, "Natures flawless harmonies, and the delights and liabilities of our human environment, with its diverse and delicate relationships, are invested with res-religious significance. Created Nature is a cryptogram of reality which transcends it, Nature is a text to be deciphered, evidence is accumulating in the material and social worlds, and in the horizons, jointly point to a hidden immaterial order." Now 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, Wa In Kuntum Feraybi Min Mannazanna Ala Abdina, Fa'tu bisooratu mimithlihe, Wada ush'ul hada thummin doonillahi sadiqeen (?). "And if you are in doubt", talk-talking to Krauss, 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 -

Audience: Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam

Tzortzis: Upon whom be peace, then bring one chapter like it, and call on your witnesses and supporters besides God, In Quntum Sadiqeen if you're truthful in this claim. Now this verse is a basis of an array of arguments in the Quranic discourse and we dont 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 innamatibility 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 linguistically comes from a Latin word miracula meaning something wonderful. And the traditional Western philosophical definition of a miracle as summarised by David Hugh in his own enquiry concerning human understanding, he says its a transgression of natural law. We don't agree with that definition -

Krauss: Whose we? (?)

Tzortzis: Because what are natural laws? Natural laws are just inductive generalisations of patterns we perceive in the universe, if something changes from the pattern or is different, then maybe its a part of the pattern, its just based on induction. What they have found, Islamic theologians and thinkers have done, they've re-defined what a miracle is based on the Quranic discourse. And they have said, 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 Quran itself. Now, the Quran talks about Moses, Musa Alayhi Salam, the prophet upon him 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, this snake, lies outside the productive capacity of the nature of the event, the wooden staff. Because the chemical makeup of the staff is different from that of the snake. In actual fact, it would add more stuff than the staff (?), if that makes sense, stuff to the staff, to be even close 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 Qurans use of the Arabic language, because the Quran cannot be described as any of the literary forms of the Arabic language, which include, Saja'ah, rhyme prose, Mur'sal, straightforward speech, Ma'qaman, a combination of metrical and non-metrical speech, and the Albihar, the 16 rhythmical patterns of classical Arabic poetry. Now interestingly, in classical Arabic, every expression falls within the non-literary forms of the Arabic language. The Quran however de-scopes the Arabic language, and the Quran is a miracle in this perspective because even though its made up of the Arabic language, there is no causal link between the Arabic language, and the Arabic and the Quran. This is because when we exhaust the 28 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 Fitzgerald Arbuthnot, a notable British orientalist states, "And that though several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to thus far as elegant writing is concerned, none have y-yet succeeded". In this light, brothers and sisters and friends, what we've just discussed can develop into 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. Its literary form cannot be logically explained, using the Arabic language. Therefore, the Quran is a miracle. As Professor Bruce Lawrence from Duke University his book, The Quran: A Biography on page number 8 (?) said, "As tangible science, Quranic verses are expressive of (??) of a truth, they signify meaning, laid within meaning, light upon light, miracle after miracle." So we have two key arguments that are based on deduction, not just induction, and to challenge an inductive argument you have to challenge the premises and I hope Professor Krauss can do that.

(murmur) (Krauss, saying something very quietly?)

Tzortzis: So lets go to some contentions. What about Shakespeare? Shakespeare is unique? But this is a very shallow contention, and I even heard this from Dan Barkur in uh, 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 we're talking about, the structural features of the Arabic language, if you look at Shakespeare, he used the iambic pentameter, the tractate verse, the blank verse, ... and many English literators used the same kind of.. structures. And if you go to the book the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography you will see that Shakespeare has been compared to Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, and other playwrights, so hes not unique or inemitable from the perspective that we're talking about. Finally, the last contention is, "But im not 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 universally accepted statement and from that draw logical conclusions. And no one would deny universally accepted statement from academia or from authorities that are valid AND sound. And authentic. Because this is the role of epistemology the study of belief, and a valued source of knowledge is actually, testimony. If you read the works of Professor Codeine (?), and Professor Keith Lehrer, and The Epistemology of Testimony published by Oxford, you will see its a grounded argument which we could discuss later. So the authentic and valid testimony concerning the Quran is, noone has been able to challenge the Quran and produce its 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, well could it be from an Arab? Could it be from an Arab-Non Arab? Could it be from Muhammad upon him be peace? Or is it from the divine reality. We know it couldn't be from an Arab because they all failed, especially the best Arabs at the time, we know it can't be a non-Arab because you have to know Arabic, we know it can't be from Muhammad upon him 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 'cos I really want a nuanced and frank discussion, I really do. And I hope I do have that with Professor Krauss I respect him dearly, and I-like I respect all of you, obviously we're gonna have a pun here and there, but, you know, thats the whole point, I couldn't get-couldn't let Krauss get away what he did in the beginning, heh,

(Audience laughter)

Tzortzis: So from that perspective I really want him to deal with my premises, and I want him to deal with the deductive argument, and I wish him, God speed, thank you.

(Audience clapping)

Krauss: Do I have to sit up here? I know its (...)

Unknown: Okay

Krauss: I'll sit up here.

(light audience chuckle)

Unknown: Previously we have (...) our debate (...)

Unknown: Oh god.

(sound of something falling, being knocked over?)

(audience laughter)

Unknown: Yeah I'm (...)

Chambers: Fine, thats fine. Okay, thank you, uh, very much, Hamza Tzortzis, for that expressive presentation on, the Islamic world view, uh now I'm going to be calling upon Professor Lawrence Krauss to come back on that for his presentation which I know he's going to last more than 25 minutes, I'm sure of that, but, but just to let you know that some of you, who perhaps don't know anything about the Professor, uh, hes a renowned uh, cosmologist, and, science, uh, uh, populariser, uh, and the foundations of doctrine (?) in the school of Earth and scien-uh, space exploration, uh, a director of the Origins project at the Arizona State University, he's hailed by scientific America as being a rare public intellectual, and hes also the author of many-mi-more than 300 scientific papers, and 9 uh, publications, books, including the international bestseller, The Physics of Star Trek. And his most recent bestseller entitled, A Universe From Nothing, now, uh being translated into 17 languages or more, uh, Professor Krauss, I call upon you to respond.

(Audience clapping)

Krauss: No I'm gonna sit here, I like sitting. Is that alright, does anyone mind?

Unknown: Yeah, thats fine.

Krauss: Okay, uh, first of all, I want to thank, um, Sabiyya, uh, Obayda, and Essa the people

Unknown person speaking to Krauss: (quietly) I really apologise, I think we have to close this..

Unknown: You can just sit there, cos they don't have sound at the mics.

Krauss: You don't have to- Oh, don't have a mic here?

Unknown person speaking to Krauss from before: (quietly) (...)

Unknown: Its not connected to anything.

Krauss: Oh I see, to the, yeah yeah.

Unknown person speaking to Krauss from before: (quietly) Ill put my chair here. (?)

Krauss: Its okay.

Unknown person speaking to Krauss from before: (quietly) yeah. (?)

Krauss: No worries. I just don't like them, because they, they give the illusion of authority -

(audience chuckle)

Krauss: Which is what, uh my colleague over here needs.

(audience chuckle)

Krauss: Um, uh, the uh, well first I wanna really thank the organisers, well, f-first I want to thank the people who invited me, um, you've been very gracious to me, uh, and treated me with more hospitality than I've gotten in many, many time-talks like I said Sabiyya webcat (?) and um, Obayda whose been taking care of me this last day or two, and Essa, who I was just working with, so I do want to thank them tremendously, ah- they showed me great respect and hospitality and I-I wanna, I wanna show them, and you, uh, that kind of respect, and and um, that doesn't mean I respect ideas. Okay, some ideas are ridiculous. And thats 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 may offend 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, um, it will lead to a discussion, um, what does offend me of course is offending personal freedom and equal rights and thats one of the reasons why I got upset in the beginning of this um, um, session, but thats been fixed and I thank the organisers for that as well, to agreeing to not segregate this room, in a 21st century, is a great step forward, and I appreciate it.

(Audience clapping)

Krauss: Y-You know im really shocked, first of all, only thing I've watched, uh uh um, uh, Mister Tzortz-

Tzortzis: Tzortzis.

Krauss: Right. Tzortzis.

Tzortzis: Okay.

Krauss: My greek is pretty good.

Tzortzis: You mean gorgeous.

Krauss: Yeah, of course.

(audience laughter)

Krauss: Gorgeous George over here.

(audience laughter)

Krauss: Um, uh, this whole-I've watched some of these they're almost exactly the same, so I thought they'd be different this time, um, and its always begins with you and I'm supposed to respond to you, but, -and I will, to some extent, but, its hard to respond to nonsense. And in fact the point of this is NOT is, is not a question does God exist, its not thats not the question, its Atheism, or I-Islam or Atheism, ah, 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 use science. Because, you DON'T. And we're gonna go through that, in real detail. Every-thing you said is NONsense when it comes to science, and we'll go through and have a little chat if thats okay.

(audience chuckle)

Tzortzis: Of course.

Krauss: Okay good. Um, and - and so I found it, uh, remarkable that you began with that kind of nonsense and will, w-will continue from that, but let me just first begin with the fact that the um, that the premise of this debate is in some sense, inappropriate. Um, because, i-if, s-it suggests two things, first of all, it suggests that Islam is something special, and it isn't. Its not special at all.

(audience drawing breath?)

Krauss: Its ONE of a THOUSAND religions that have-or more, that have existed since the dawn of man, ALL of which claim divine revelation, ALL of which claim perfection, all of which contain-con-c-uh, proclaim infinite knowledge, uniqueness, beauty, et cetera. So Islam is just a religion like any other religion, and theres no difference, its, s-it proclaims, just as the Reek Vadah (?) did, and Acamdactum (?) in Ancient Egypt, that the universe had a beginning, nothing special, okay, it-theres theres absolutely nothing special and the question is, Islam as one of a thousand religions, all of which make the same claims, but mutually cond-inconsistent ones. So one of the things we know is, 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, cos they're not- they're not consistent with each other, so that means ad priori, just ad priori, and I really k-know like that, you like that term, instead of ad fas priori (?), I've heard you say that, ad priori, Islam has a problem in point 1 percent of being correct. Because just one of a thousand religions, and one of them i-is-i-ts-i-at most is correct, but since they all make the same claims, its probable that none of them are correct. So thats, so treating Islam specially, is inappropriate. Then, Atheism is somehow- as the d-described beaker (?) a belief system, its not a belief system, like, like uh, Islam or Judaism or Christianity or the Norse Myths or Zeus or Thor or any of the other myths that have been created throughout human history, its, all its saying is, its not a belief system its saying, you know what, we don't choose to believe that stuff because theres-its not sensible. So its not saying we believe bats (?) its saying, well this-this myth is inconsistent with this myth, or this myth is inconsistent with what we know about the universe, and therefore, its unlikely to be true, so what Atheism is, its just saying this is unlikely to be true, its not a belief system. So to compare one versus (?) the other is of course, false. Its a false premise. It-The first part of the false premise is that Atheism is- uh, is that Islam is special, not special at all, its been there, it'll be gone, or it'll be there as long as other religions, its just like all the rest. And Atheism is not a religion. Its just, in fact, what it is, is, could be described as common sense.

(audience chuckle)

Krauss: Okay, what, 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 thats what science is all about. Okay, so that, having said that, that theres nothing special about Islam, and there certainly isn't, lets, lets um, lets tal-I'm gonna talk a little bit about- my intent by the way is, uh, the other thing I should say is, debates, I'm an educator. Its, 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 the increase in knowledge. Debates aren't meant for that. Debates are rhetorical devices, for people that want to perform, make, make statements and then challenge others and try and, uh-uh-uh convince an audience of something. Thats not education. So I will talk a little about some of this, and then I just want to have a chat, I'm gonna use my 25 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 cos I'd actually like to learn, uh, some things. Okay, and hopefully in the process there'll be some education, for both of us. Um, so, the first thing ah-I want to say, or, I want to clear up some misconceptions. This idea of deductive arguments, um, whi-which sounds good is not the way we learn about reality, okay. Deductive arguments just don't work. They lead to, irrational actions. In fact, if we just ask 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 re- 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, pray to Allah, that you could walk, you could jump out, the fourth story of this, uh, window, uh, of this building, and you'd 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 and Allah would take care of you or whatever you want to call it that you would-that you'd be fine. I would take the elevator down and only one of us would be walking at the end -

(light audience chuckle)

Krauss: That, is not deductive, its based on empirical evidence. Okay now.. so, so arguing that something doesn't make sense to you, is based on the fact that you-it-of the assumption that you know whats sensible, in advance. But we don't know whats sensible in advance. Until we explore the world around us. Our common sense derived from the fact that we evolved on the Savannah in Africa to avoid lions, NOT to understand quantum mechanics, for example. As I've often said, common sense, or deductive, or 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, we force our idea of common sense to change its called learning! Some people would rather, read an ancient book, then learn. And w-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 thats whats 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 mind to conform to the evidence of reality is Common Sense. And thats what, when you call Atheism, thats what that is, thats 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 alot of, ideas, which, which, uh, er, Gorgeous George over here (chuckle) -

Tzortzis: No, Mister Tzortz.

Krauss: Shor-Tzorshey. Circus? (?) Um.

Tzortzis: Tz-Tzortzis.

Krauss: Tzorgeous. Zorgeous. I think thats a bit better (?)- I've been trying to learn Turkish, but I think, Zortzis. His Pitorzis (?)-

(audience chuckling)

Krauss: Um, -

Tzortzis: If you want to learn Turkish, you can speak (?)

Krauss: Okay. Um,

Tzortzis: Greek.

Krauss: Do you speak Ancient Arabic, by the way?

Tzortzis: I fa- (...) to (?)

Krauss: Oh, billogram (?), but you don't speak it, then.

Tzortzis: No, no.

Krauss: So your presumption that its beautiful ancient Arabic, is just a presumption, you actually don't know what you're talking about.

Tzortzis: No, its, -

Krauss: Okay.

Tzortzis: I'll respond to it-

Krauss: Okay. I just wanted to ask that question, because I can't-don't speak Turkish I wanted to see if you spoke Ancient Arabic-

Tzortzis: Is that a question, or a comment?

Krauss: Well I just wanna ask, do you speak Ancient Arabic?

Tzortzis: Yes I do.

Krauss: Fluently?

Tzortzis: No, but I do speak it.

Krauss: Oh, okay, but not fluently.

Tzortzis: Kayfa Hal.

(Audience clapping and cheering)

Krauss: -The other language that you don't speak is called the Language of Mathematics. So lets talk about that. Lets stop with this nonsense about infinity. Lets take something physical. Lets draw a circle. And draw a diameter. Whats the ratio of the circumference of the circle to the diameter, do you know?

Tzortzis: You're the teacher.

Krauss: Do you know?

Tzortzis: You're the teacher!

Krauss: I know, I'm asking you a question, I want to have a chat (?)

Tzortzis: I don't - I don't know anything. Give your speech -

(audience chuckle)

Krauss: Well, you've demonstrated that, but lets-let-its oh-you've heard, of Pi?

Tzortzis: Yes I have, yeah.

Krauss: Oh, do you know what it is?

Tzortzis: Three point one four, the first four decimals (?)

Krauss: How many, how many decimals does it have?

Tzortzis: Uh, I don't remember.

Krauss: An infinite number.

Tzortzis: Yes, yes.

Krauss: Okay, so the Physical distance of the ratio of the ratio of a-of a diameter of a circle to its circumference is an Infinite number!

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: What do you know! Now, when we talk about-now I can-whats amazing to me is you quoted Aristotle as the basis of science. Of course, Aristotle was the one that told us objects fall in proportion to their weight. 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-lets do the experiment here. In front of you. So this, optus (?), I'm going to take this object and this object-

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: Aristotle would tell me which would fall first. Will you tell me which would fall first? Guess, -

Tzortzis: Okay.

Krauss: If you don't know.

Tzortzis: Um, -

Audience member: Book.

Tzortzis: The book.

Krauss: Okay, (sound of an object hitting the floor), book, you were right, great! Okay, good. Why?

Tzortzis: Because-

Audience member: Friction.

Tzortzis: There's um, resistance. To the..

Krauss: Resistance to what?

Tzortzis: To the paper.

Krauss: Yeah exactly, Aristotle didn't know that.

Tzortzis: Yes, he didn't know that.

Krauss: Okay. Aristotle also claimed that infinity was impossible because he believed 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 thats an infinite thing that makes it fucking impossible.

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: Well, the thing that Aristotle didn't know how to do and you don't know how to do is to sum an infinite series. One plus a half plus a quarter plus an eighth plus a sixteenth adds up to two.

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: Okay. 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 a-is a-is a concept that appears to be in-in contradiction with the evidence of, of physics. But that doesn't imply all in-infinities are impossible, in fact, space can be infinitely large. Theres no, theres no presumption that space isn't infinitely large, it could be. What we now know about physics suggests it probably isn't, but theres 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, is just not the way the world works. Cos infinities happen all the time, whether you like them or not. Not only that, it doesn't lead to irrational-uh-to irrational actions, mathematicians have a way of dealing with infinity. We can add infinities, we can, we can then take numbers in an-in an infinite series that, for example, the series one plus two plus three plus four plus five plus six plus seven, to infinity, actually has, in mathematic-al terms, can have a finite ans-uh, sum. Its minus one-twelfth, if you wanted to know. Okay, it may not seem logical to you. It may seem inconceivable to you, that the sum of the series of positive terms, each of which is bigger than one-twelfth, could end up being minus one-twelfth, but the fact its- inconceivable to you, just means you're ignorant.

Tzortzis: Thank you.

Krauss: Okay.

(audience chuckle)

Krauss: Now, this idea, that, that, uh, that, that, uh, Occam's ra-razor suggests, for-I mean-first of all Occam's razor is not a principle of science. Okay, its 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 if every gene, uh-ev-every, si-in fact we 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 is we discovered theres a complex interaction of genes so that in fact, in-that there are many separate causes of many most diseases, there are very few diseases that have single cause. But in fact, you know what, is simpler than the number one? The number zero. Zero is a much simpler ar-reason, there's no cause. Okay, so if you really wanted to apply, Occam's razor, in fact, you've applied no causes. Now, you've also used the term... causality. Which is a term I understand. Uh.. you didn't define it. Do you wanna define it?

Tzortzis: Uh maybe. (?)

Krauss: Well, why don't you do it now.

Tzortzis: I don't want to give you that favour.

(audience chuckle)

Krauss: Well I thought we're gonna have a Chat!

Tzortzis: Yeah but I wanna have a "chat" not a "Chaat" so its, less rhetoric for me.

(audience laughter and clapping)

Krauss: No no, lets have a chat. We're not talking about rhetoric, we're talking about the lecture you just gave, now I want to have a chat, I'm asking you the question.. do you know what causality means, you used the term.

Tzortzis: Yeah.

Krauss: Okay.

Tzortzis: Well..

Krauss: I mean I-if you use a term you should know what it means.

Tzortzis: Yes. I-

Krauss: Okay. Good, YOU used it.

Tzortzis: I have my definition, I have my definition.

Krauss: Okay, okay, well I'll define it, thats, you know, cause, proceeds, effects. Does that sound good?

Tzortzis: No, thats the wrong definition.

Krauss: Okay, what, what's your definition (?)

(audience clapping and light jeering, "woah, ooh")

Tzortzis: For example, theres an interesting book about quantum physics and causality, -

Krauss: Mmhm.

Tzortzis: And, the philosophers and philosopher science and scientists have disagreed on, a specific definition, so they've reduce back to, a fundamental definition-

Krauss: No..

Tzortzis: And therefore.. (?)

Krauss: Mmhm.

Tzortzis: Do you wanna have a chat, or a Chaat?

(audience laughter and clapping)

Krauss: I thought (...) what it says (?) quantum physics disagree about the definition of causality?

Tzortzis: Have you presumed, your results here?

Krauss: No-

Tzortzis: Do you definetely wanna connect with me and (...)

Krauss: No. No no. I'll (...)

Tzortzis: You've asked me a question, you're answering before me?

(audience chuckle)

Krauss: Hey.

Tzortzis: I mean come on!

Krauss: You quoted physicists, go on.

Tzortzis: Let me.. as a scientist.

Krauss: Okay.

(audience chuckles lightly)

Tzortzis: Now, which is the same, I agree. Now. So for my different point, as you believe it is a matter of cause and effect ...

Krauss: Mmhm.

Tzortzis: Is that, the agreement has been, on the something which produces an effect, which includes therefore, you can have something called asymmetric spontaneous causality, where the cause exists prior causily but not prior temporarly (?). So, there is a whole-

Krauss: Why are you-lets-lets prior causily, not prior temporarly? (?)

Tzortzis: Prior causily means, that, there is like, there could-I give you an example, the Kantian example was, you have, an infinite ball..

Krauss: Mm.

Tzortzis: As well an infinite pillow.

Krauss: Mmhm.

Tzortzis: They both, time doesn't exist here, but you're not gonna say that indentation is not as a result of the ball, so there is a cause theres a tendency there, and time is out the window. So we could discuss causality till the cows come home, but, you know, its not as simple as what you're trying to say, -

Krauss: Well, so, so-

Tzortzis: It doesn't presume tempor-ah-temporality as you see it.

Krauss: Well, I-I, I think it does, I think we, again, if you think carefully what we just did, the ball doesn't, create a, uh, indent the pillow, but we used infinite, I thought we weren't allowed infinite, but anyway, um-

Tzortzis: We use an example.

Krauss: Yeah, well, its an example, a physical example which you said doesn't exist, you said, but it doesn't matter whats infinite, a pillow here, a finite pillow with a finite ball, -

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: Okay, theres an indent.

Tzortzis: Of course there is.

Krauss: Okay, was the- was the ball there, or not?

Tzortzis: Well my example wasn't based on finitude it was based on the law of infinite.

Krauss: Well, bu-but, but if, but if the ball isn't on the pillow, it doesn't create an indent.. right?

Tzortzis: Yeah, of course, yeah.

Krauss: Okay, so it'd have to be, so, was it put on the pillow, or no?

Tzortzis: Well thats irrelevant. You're damning the example, thats a -

Krauss: No, no tha-you're taking a legi- (?)

Tzortzis: Thats a, thats a logical travesty. (?)

Krauss: No, no..

Tzortzis: You know, ...

Krauss: No, no, I b-the point is, physical causes have physical effects, well either the ball is on the pillow or no. Now the point about casuality is, that, ..

(audience chuckles)

Krauss: That the interesting aspect of it is is its an interesting physical question. But, what if theres no before?.. Lets take, you know you talk-you talked about the, cosmology, so lets take general relativity... whose equations I-I-I'm sure you don't know.. And.. and.. -

Tzortzis: I said I don't know (...)

Krauss: Take it back to the beginning,

Tzortzis: Okay.

Krauss: We talked-you-you made it very clear that the beginning of the universe is straightforward, you deduced it. But in fact.. deduction doesn't matter. The point is, universe-our visible universe did have a beginning, because, we can measure. Whether we liked it or not or whether we think its sensible or not, it actually did have a beginning, a cause, a-a,a factor not in dispute. Our universe did actually have a beginning. However, the laws of physics, tell us, right down if we extrapolate back to the beginning, that.. its 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.. whats th-what i-the-the sense of cause doesn't even make sense. And this is the key point, in science.. we have to realise our common sense notions 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 you've somehow talked to me about the fact that the Quran as a literary document is different than other literary documents. And you've given some arguments I don't understand. Well I actually did this the other day, because I've seen you give this talk a gazillion times, um..

(an audience member makes a noise, chuckle?)

Krauss: I actually, inputted, in a, in a computer, ah, ah, ah.. alot of Arabic words, and asked it to produce them at random, and I produced, uh, two sentences from the Arabic, at eleven point, -from the Quran, in eleven point six seconds. My computer speaks neither Arabic nor is Arab but produced that incredibly divine-those incredibly divine words. Now, the other question of course I would have, is, all-and this is a common sense question, is why did God choose Arabic? Or Aramaic, or Greek, I mean wh-you know, doesn't he speak English? The Americans always think he does, which is why they invented the Mormon religion.

(audience chuckles)

Krauss: Um, 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 wanna dwell on, because its just one of a thousand different religions - all of which make the same claims, and all of which, if you look at them a priori, are equally, ridiculous. From a priori common sense notion. For example, and I got this from my friend, m-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, uh, and, and, has four and a half billion years of life evolving, and then, and then, uh, homosapiens evolve, and.. live in incredibly.. awful conditions, and, uh, and, uh, for two hundred fifty thousand years, and suddenly, in the middle of the desert, in a cave where no-one can see you.. he takes some, poor schmal (?), 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, in great sado-masochistic length about the torture they're going to have and we can all enjoy it. Now. What, what about all those poor, two-hundred fifty thou-year.. two hundred fifty thousand years of people, real people who were struggling to exist and survive, those poor people who were existing before that God decided to give his revelation to Mohammad. Why that? Why would, why would a sensible 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 you'd say well you know what, it just doesn't make sense- why doesn't once, why not once, does it call down from the sky, so EVERYONE can hear it. Why is it always given to people in private, who then claim they've had a revelation? Now why should I believe, Mohammad's revelations, a-any more than anyone elses? In fact.. there is a young woman in the United States, in my country, who as 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. Cos God told her, she heard it. She heard it, she had a revelation, it was real, she heard words in incredible harmony, and beauty that she'd never experienced before in her life, and she drowned her four children. Okay, now shes in a mental hospital. For good reason. Cos there's no evidence, theres no-that a sensible person would believe, to suggest that God was telling her to drown her four children. Now, why would, d-d-let me ask you, do you, do you think Shariah Law should be instituted?

Tzortzis: Well, it depends how you define Shariah Law.

Krauss: O-

Tzortzis: Do you know anything about Shariah Law?

Krauss: Well, I was gonna ask you about it.

Tzortzis: I will teach you in the next round.

(audience chuckle)

Krauss: Okay, good. Do you think, for example, that.. blasphemers should be punished?

Tzortzis: Blasphemers meaning?

Krauss: Maybe if I say, lets, lets just say, and forgive me, lets just say I say that someone who married a 9 year old girl is a, is a pedophile.

Tzortzis: Yeah.

Krauss: And maybe that person is a prophet. Is that a blasphemer, should I-is that worth being pun-punished for?

Tzortzis: Well I think you should be educated first.

Krauss: No, no I'm not maybe I'm not saying it happened. But lets say I said that, I made that claim, should I be punished?

Tzortzis: In a court of law of justice, there would be a form of punishment.

Krauss: Okay. So if I- oh what about if I questioned, openly questioned, the existence, of God. In fact, said openly, and preached, in a room that theres no God. Is that worth punishment?

Tzortzis: This is fitnah. (...) Intellectual debate (...)

Krauss: Okay.

Tzortzis: In the mention of 8th century Dah'riyyah (?)-

Krauss: So, so if I say, that Allahs not God, but Thor is God, and people should worship Thor, and I go, and thats not blaspheming?

Tzortzis: Well its wrong, and its, and its childish, but other than that discussion (?)

Krauss: But, but its blasphemous to suggest, is it blasphemous to suggest, that Mohammad isn't a prophet?

Tzortzis: Well, from an Islamic perspective, you understand theres a difference between public intellectual discourse-

Krauss: Okay, so, great. Okay. Okay, well thats, thats great.

Tzortzis: (...) A form of intellectual discourse, as per, this big debate!

Krauss: Oh but you say I should be punished if I suggest Mohammad was a child molestor, thats (...)

Tzortzis: No no no no, I wasn't saying that, I was-

Krauss: Didn't you say that?

Tzortzis: What I'm saying is, in an Islamic law, for instance, if you were to speak about something like (?) this, and you would be taken to a court, under certain conditions, -

Krauss: Then I would be punished.

Tzortzis: There may be a punishment, but generally speaking it would be more, edifying and education rather-

Krauss: But should there be punishment, thats what I'm asking you. Should there be.

Tzortzis: Oh you're asking me-you're asking me-

Krauss: Yeah.

Tzortzis: If there should be punishment, I think we should follow both lower courts (?)

Krauss: So there should be punishment.

Tzortzis: I there there should be a punishment for deliberately harming someone else.

Krauss: For, for.. openly questioning.

Tzortzis: But jokes do NO damage (...)

Krauss: For openly questioning or openly ridiculing on it. So, so, so..

Tzortzis: Nah nah nah nah nah, theres a difference, most strong man (?) (...)

Krauss: In the-let-okay, let me take a more clear example.

Tzortzis: If you're a strong man (?) (...)

Krauss: Say you're a homosexual man.

Tzortzis: (quietly) Yes.

Krauss: And you have sex, with another homosexual man, does that, should that be subject to punishment?

Tzortzis: If the private of home (?) is outside the Shariah law. If they did it in public, which doesn't even have the law you're from,-

Krauss: Mmhm.

Tzortzis: Then its a different story.

(audience laughter and clapping, a cheer)

Krauss: Where am I from?

Tzortzis: Well, you're from the United States of America.

Krauss: Oh I see, um, and thats uh, and so it doesn't even happen in where I'm from. Now thats, thats rude.

(audience chuckle)

Krauss: But any case, um, uh, but it does happen in, n-one the thing about it is,-

Tzortzis: Thats called a conspiracy!

Krauss: It DOES happen where I'm from..

Tzortzis: Well thats, thats.. (...)

Krauss: So two people in Arizona are around in the desert, having sex,-

(audience chuckling)

Krauss: Because they really, get turned on.. and they're both men, and they have sex together..

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: Okay. Is that punishable?

Tzortzis: If theres no-one in the desert, no its not.

Krauss: Is homos-okay let me ask you another question, is homosexuality wrong?

Tzortzis: In their country, traditional said (?)

Krauss: Okay. Now heres-, heres my idea, of why common sense should tell you that Islam, like many other religions, is not, common sense. Because first and foremost actually, its perfectly natural, in all, in all animal species almost its natural,

(audience chuckling)

Krauss: It occurs with a 10 percent frequency. Okay, in fact, there are good evolutionary reasons for homosexuality. So in that sense, theres 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 the way which 10 percent of the sheep are, long term homosexual relationship.

(audience chuckling)

Krauss: Why would a God, who thought it was a sin, create sheep, who don't have a soul, who can-who can't-who aren't, able to think, about it, be homosexual? Thats the kind of nonsense that we have to ask, and the only way we can determine if its nonsense is by looking at the world around us, not by deducing it, not by listening to the words, of ignorant individuals and irinate (?), i-irinate 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, from people, who didn't even understand the way the world worked. Thank you.

(audience clapping)

Chambers: Professor Krauss.. thank you very much, for your, presentation.. uh, oh the.. atheist world view..

Krauss: Its not a world (...)

Chambers: Uh, I think it was-I think it was actually more, like a dialogue, nice to chat between you two guys actually-

Tzortzis: Yes.

Chambers: I was, I was wondering, whet-whether I should jump in and stop you guys, you know. Its uh, uh, anyway, I'm sure-cos I'm sure, Aristotle and Galileo did the same thing. But.

(audience light chuckle)

Chambers: Now, we've got something uh, to sort of, come back on, uh, from uh Professor he's given alot of food for thought, and no doubt Hamza, in uhh about 10 minutes?

Tzortzis: Yes. Thank you.. (?)

Chambers: He could uh, possibly come back and answer some of those contentions brought up by Professor Krauss.

Tzortzis: 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 smidge fish,-

(audience chuckles)

Tzortzis: That you put across the path of running dogs..

(audience laughter)

Tzortzis: And uh, you know-the reason for the 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 finitude of the universe. And he wanted to correct me on something that I didn't even mention myself? This is what you call, not rhetoric, not intellectual arguments, its what you call sophistry. Its rhetoric, with crap, frankly.

(audience chuckle and clapping)

Tzortzis: And .. I'm not saying it to be, I'm not saying it to be rude, because its a typical Kraussian fashion, a Kraussian fashion trying to win over the whole audience, make a hoo-ha in the beginning, and you know, imagine I did that when I walked into, one day I-I had interfaith dialogue. And.. imagine I walked into a Jewish mosque or hall that was public, and I basically said I don't wanna do things your way, but I wanna discuss with you, but I'm not gonna do things your way. Is that tolerance? Is that how you connect with other people? Humans are not but our tradition,-

(audience clapping)

Tzortzis: But he won't even ask them why do you have this and he, another strawman. Justice and Equal Rights. You think they're saying that because they don't have any justice or equal rights? My own wife is out there, ask my wife! Whats the matter with you? See these pre-sumptions from Fox News; you're an academic, but..but when you talk about Islam, its based on the Fox News narrative and I'm gonna expose this in a minute.

Audience member: Hear, hear.

(Audience clapping, cheering and whistling)

Audience member: Takbir!

Tzortzis: Now if he uses the word a priori more than three times but you rejected deductive thinking.. I mean, isn't a priori deductive?

Krauss: (...)

Tzortzis: I mean you can't have your cake and eat it, sir!

Krauss: And I trust.. (?)

(light audience clapping)

Tzortzis: Example (?)... and th-thats the first quote, the second point I'd like to make.. actually, calm down..

(audience laughter, single clap)

Tzortzis: The second point I would like to make..

(audience laughter)

Tzortzis: Is.. that.. see, we're not rej-we're not rejecting inductive arguments, of course we're not. You're forgetting the inductive method, scientific method, you know where it came from, sir? Do you know where it came from?

Krauss: I kn-ah-in fact theres an or,remarkable scientific mathematical tradition in the Arab world, if thats what you're gonna talk about.

Tzortzis: I'm gonna talk about Ibn Al Haitham and his book of Optics..

Krauss: Yeah!

Tzortzis: Read the works of David Linberg and others, historians of philosophy and science.. And this it came from Islam you know why cos Islam doesn't reject - th-

Krauss: No they came from the Arab world, th-they didn't come from Islam.

Tzortzis: Well let me give you the link, let me give you the link.. okay. Afala yun thuroona ilal ibilikay fahooliqat. Had, had you not seen.. empiricism.. the created thing like a camel, and how it was formed and how it was created. This was the basis and this was the poetic justification for the en-TIRE 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 have to break down the premises which you didn't! You just talks-talking about the Infinite, and the circle and the circumference- I knew you were gonna do this..

(audience chuckle)

Tzortzis: Because its all mathematics. Remember what I said..

Krauss: Well its a physical circle.

Tzortzis: Yeah, but let me make a point. A big point. I said the quantifiable infinite. The quantifiable infinite cannot be actualised in the physical realm, something that you-you agreed with, one second.. And I said theres nothing with the qualitative infinite, and qualitative infinites can exist infinitely for example mathematicians discuss, yes, so wheres the infinite there?

(audience laughter)

Krauss: Now I gave you (?) the length-whats-immunes(?)-in-you think this is a length, a length is a physical quantity? That is, length is the physical quantit-that is, okay. The length of this, and the length of that, okay? The ratio of those two lengths is an infinite number.

Tzortzis: Yes, of course it is..

Krauss: Okay.

Tzortzis: But what is that length?

Audience member: No it isn't. (?)

Another audience member: Any right (?)(...)

Tzortzis: What is that length?

Krauss: One, this is a length, one, theres one Krauss.

Tzortzis: Okay, can you-

Krauss: (...)

(audience laughter)

Tzortzis: One second. Can you measure, wait, can you measure the straight line? And can you measure the circumference? Yes or no.

Krauss: I can measure it.

Tzortzis: Well thats a quan-thats quantifiable.

Krauss: Yeah.

Tzortzis: What you're talking about is in the realm of mathematical realm of discourse, which has axioms and conventions which doesn't make sense (?), I'm not disagreeing with that, I'm agreeing wi-you already agreed with in your own book, which from a quantifiable discrete perspective, you can't have an infinite. Thats the point I'm trying to make.

Krauss: Oh, discrete?

Tzortzis: Discrete parts.

Krauss: But, but who says it has to be discrete?

Tzortzis: Ah, but thats your presupposition. Thats your presupposition-

Krauss: No, I said..

Tzortzis: You brought your assumptions,

Unknown: There you go.. (?)

Tzortzis: Fox News by the way..

Krauss: No no, no, no..

(audience laughter)

Tzortzis: And ultimately(?)-ah, and you think you've got an answer.

Krauss: No..

Tzortzis: I-I have time, let me finish this please.

Krauss: Okay cos, well I gotta teach you different, calculus, Newton events that go on (?)(...)

Tzortzis: Yeah, I know, but calculus is based on axioms, conventions, and mathematical realm of discourse.

Krauss: It describes how things work.

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: Okay.

Tzortzis: Now, I'll give you a point (?). So, thats the first point. Oh, dear.

(audience chuckle)

Tzortzis: Okay, then we spoke about.. for example, zero is simple as in-a-as-as-Occam's razor again, you've-you've misconstrued what Occam's razor is. Occam's razor is not only the simplest explanation, it has-has, has to have greater explanatory scope -

Krauss: (quietly) Okay.

Tzortis: And explanatory power. Zero has no explanatory scope of-or power concerning the origins of the universe -

Krauss: (quietly) Okay, I'll explain it after. (?)

(light audience chuckle)

Tzortzis: From that perspective. The other point I like t-I like to make. Is.. you spoke about, for example, Hell, and justice, look at all these people that're going to Hell, again another huge straw-man, you misrepresented Islamic theology. We have a very nuanced theology sir.. I think the best thing to do if you WERE sincere you woulda said, You know Hamza.. I don't get this, I haven't read this before I'm just making my own up- mind up because I watched videos of Christopher Hitchens and he's an authority to me..

(light audience laughter)

Tzortzis: I don't know much.. Ah-can you tell me what Islam says about this issue? That would've been better, wouldn't it? But, again, its a strawman, when it comes to things that count, we believe God is All Just and All Merciful, okay. No-one disagrees with the concept of punishment, okay. You're not gonna disagree with the concept of punishment, are you.. so when it comes to people who haven't- heard about Islam, theres a whole array, of theologians like Ibn Tamir and Ali Gazali who said, that theres gonna be another form of justice for them, they may be tested on the Day of Judgement, based on other prophetic traditions, its not as simple as that. Okay. Homosexuality is the same, again. You try to put words in my mouth a-a, and thats not nice. Thats not nice.

Krauss: I asked you questions, I didn't -

Tzortzis: You did,

Krauss: Put words in your mouth.

Tzortzis: But then after you tried to answer them for me, which is quite interesting.

(audience laughter)

Tzortzis: Now.. See, we don't-

Krauss: You're answering.. (?)

Tzortzis: Believe.. homosexual tendencies, tendencies, per se.. are.. sinful. Its the manifestation of the homosexual Act, in public, is sinful. Because we believe, in-in our theology, let me make-let me just make the point. That we're given a package. We all have tendencies- some are-people have tendencies, you know.. th-they're polygamous, for example.. or.. other people have tendencies.. that, may be s-be seen negative -

(light audience murmur)

Tzortzis: Or taboo, other people have tendencies, concerning various different things and we're-we believe this is a Package that God has given us. Well we have an empowering philosopher 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 A'kala intellect, but 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 is how you control them- th-we don't believe in like, we should be, agitate(?), purely based on the beastal.. aspects of man, whether its.. heterosexual or homosexual. And by the way.. you know, saying "Ouff" 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 (high-pitched voice) you know-you know aah im gonna kill you, (normal voice) we appreciate every human being, they have spiritual needs.. but, we're not gonna, we're not gonna make up our own religion, we're not gonna follow the Kraussian religion whatever he says, we're gonna follow the divine reality if it says homosexuality is a sin, its sin- Just like drinking alcohol is a sin, for the Muslim, or for example, b-being harmful to human beings is a sin, alright just because I have a tendency and, and I'm a martial artist and im gonna harm people.. does that mean now, you know, God is wrong just because I have that tendency? I mean thats-thats not right. Anyway I'm still looking for some count-some strong counter arguments you made to my points..

(audience laughter)

Tzortzis: Um..

Krauss: Where do (?) points actually make it into counter arguments..

(audience laughter)

Tzortzis: Well the points that make-because you didn't-you-okay. This is what it is-infinity doesn't exist..

Krauss: Yes it does.. Okay.

Tzortzis: You didn't, you didn't, no I said the quantifiable infinite doesn't exist, I agree the infinite exists, don't-again, another strawman. The point I'm trying to say is this: We have a deductive argument, that the universe is finite.. If its finite, it began to exist. If it began to exist there are some logical possibilities. Please entertain those logical possibilities, if not, its equivalent you coming to my house having a coffee, I'm talking to you but you're talking to the window..

(Audience laughter)

Tzortzis: And I know you have, you-you have better morals and manners than that, cos I.. I-I know you're-you're highly respected, and we do all respect you.. in some paradoxical way but the point is..

(Audience laughter)

Tzortzis: The point I'm trying to say dear (?) Professor Krauss, is that, I think.. its only fair.. if you.. want to pick and choose from the Fox News narrative.. that, you actually.. trying to change that stance and say right, what does Shariah law say? Do you have a book of Shariah Law?

Krauss: I asked you, so I could learn.

Tzortzis: No, you were telling me.-

Krauss: No I was asking. (?)

Tzortzis: You have a book-okay, do you have a book of Shariah law?

Krauss: No!

Tzortzis: And you-

Krauss: Cos its based on nonsense!

Tzortzis: Think judgements, and you th-okay. I have a book on Atheism, I think its based on nonsense-

Krauss: Great!

Tzortzis: But I give you the intellectual epistemic respect, to read your world view. But you've come here-

Krauss: Oh I won't-Its not a book on Atheism, its a book on science. (?)

Tzortzis: Blasé!.. Sorry, you've come here blasé. Almost arrogant, I don't wanna judge you, and say you know its alright but actually I'm not gonna entertain 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 judgements on Shariah law, you don't even have a book! On Shariah law.

Krauss: Thats why I asked questions.

(Audience clapping, cheering, whistling)

Krauss: (...) Thats why, I ask questions. I asked you questions so I could learn and I asked what YOU thought,-

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: As someone whose- opinions I'm supposed to respect. And I wanted to know,-

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: If you think-what is wrong (?) and I wanted to know why, theres 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-

Tzortzis: No.

Krauss: That with no evidence!

Tzortzis: Theres a different way-

(audience clapping)

Tzortzis: Okay.

Audience member: Hear, hear! (?)

Tzortzis: L-let me-let me-let me ask, let me ask Professor Krauss a question. Why is.. why is incest wrong.

Krauss: Its-uh-Its not clear to me that its wrong.

Tzortzis: Okay.

Krauss: Its clear it-it- theres a, theres something..- (?)

(Audience laughing and murmuring loudly, there is loud speaking and some jeering)(?)

Krauss: (Trying to speak)(...) Theres-theres-theres-th-th-theres, theres.. (?)

Tzortzis: W-w-wait, l-lets give him, lets give him the respect, please, hes got a-

Krauss: You asked me a question, and if you want me to answer it.. (...)

Tzortzis: Justification. (...) Go ahead. (?)

Krauss: The point is, most societies had the-have a taboo on incest, and i-and its an empirical one. Generally, incest produces genetic defects.

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: Okay, uh, -and so th-so in, in, in general, theres a physiological reason and a-and a societal one, why incest is wrong.

Tzortzis: (Quietly) Yes.

Krauss: Okay. But, if you ask me the question.. is it, and, this is an interesting question. We are in-by the way, its an ingrained-theres an inc-ingrained incest taboo in almost all societies for that reason.

Tzortzis: Sure.

Krauss: Because societies want to persist, so it-it works. But if you ask me a priori, for example,.. the question.. i-if, a-a brother and a sister loved each other, and used.. contraception..

(audience laughing and murmuring)

Krauss: Is, is there something absolutely morally wrong about that?

(several audience members say yes, one says mmhm)

(audience murmurs)

Krauss: I'm-I.. A-and then, by the way, once, and then went off and it didn't affect anything else, I'm gonna have to think about it because I don't think theres any, absolute.. condemnation of that- in fact, if they love each other and care for each, and they go off and it doesn't affect anything else-

Tzortzis: Okay. (?)

Krauss: I, I-would I recommend it? No.. would I be critically happy about it(?)-would I be willing to listen to those arguments? If they were rational, maybe.

Tzortzis: Okay, good. So, see this is precisely the point 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 your moral judgements, at best.. are relative and subjective. Now, when you look about moral theory, from an Islamic perspective and a religious perspective you see, that, objective morals, that-you're pointing the finger and saying, "You know you're wrong! You're nonsense! Shariah 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 for your objective moral values. Because, if you take God out of the picture, hes the only constant that transcends human subjectivity. Social pressure, you know that doesn't work, look what happened in Nazi Germany. You know for example evolution, it.. makes it end up being ephemeral(?) and empty if you look at the, philosopher of science, Michael Ruse.. He said, you think loving thy neighbour as thy self is like you're referring above and beyond the self, but essentially it has no true meaning its just, a product of survival and reproduction. So from this perspective, you don't have an on-tological, grounding for objective moral truths. The best you could do, what alot of atheists have done, is, well, we believe in moral rea-realism, which is, moral truths are just moral truths because they are. Well, Islam just is, and the prophet Muhammad upon him be peace just is and the Quran just is, thats not an argument. So the reason I asked 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 been- the irony is, most of your articulation against Islam, has had a Moral, lie to it. Not a rational one, because you didn't deal with the premises of my argument-

Krauss: I did!

Tzortzis: You-no you didn't, you talked about infinity, and-

Krauss: I talked cau-causality, infinity, the con-the words that you employ now.

Tzortzis: Yes, and what'd you say about causality?

Krauss: I said, in fact thats its quite, likely that the beginning of the universe, causality isn't a good question (?). That if you learn some of the physics-

Tzortzis: Your dream here,-

Krauss: You'd understand it.

Tzortzis: No, your presupposition on causality.

Krauss: No, its not my presupposition-

Tzortzis: It is!

Krauss: Its, time doesn't exist.

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: Space doesn't exist.

Tzortzis: Okay, think about the-the statement, Something produces an effect. Where is time as a definition, there?

Krauss: Produces.

Tzortzis: No, it could be equal(?), it could be-it could be a, it could be a temporal.

(light clapping from the audience)

Krauss: What is an a temporal?

Tzortzis: Well-

Krauss: You explain to me, clearly what you mean in a physical way, and..

Tzortzis: Okay.

Krauss: And, don't just give me the-

Tzortzis: Ok-

Krauss: English language, give me, give me a physical example. (...)

(light audience laughter)

Tzortzis: Okay. Let me give you-like, like your 'Nothing' is a physical example yeah?

(audience laughter)

Krauss: Well, you haven't explained it like-like it is, yet. Y-you-you, you read the preface, like a number of people did, but I don't know if you go-got very far in the (...)

Tzortzis: Actually, I read the whole book! I-I liked it!

Krauss: Great. Whats my Nothing?

Tzortzis: Your Nothing is-

Krauss: What is my Nothing?

Tzortzis: Your Nothing is quantum.

Krauss: No.

Tzortzis: It is!

Krauss: No! No space, no time, no laws, no nothing!

Tzortzis: But thats still the quantum haze.

(audience clapping)

Krauss: No!

Tzortzis: (...)

Krauss: (...) There's, there's nothing. There's no universe! There's no, universe! Nothing! Zero, Zip, Nada!

(audience laughter)

Tzortzis: So, why do you say in your own book, then, that, we will reduce to one quantum haze?

Chambers: Hamza, can I..

Tzortzis: Yep.

Chambers: Can I..-

Tzortzis: Well, he took alot of my time. He took alot of my time.

Chambers: Interrupt..

Chambers: Yeah.

Krauss: Well, -

Chambers: But.

Krauss: Did you- I can't- (?)

Chambers: Res-

Krauss: Go over my time to answer my question! (?)

Chambers: Resolve it into a discussion.

Krauss: So-

Chambers: I- (?)

Krauss: We'll continue the discussion, -

Chambers: Oh, okay. (?)

Krauss: Because I'm planning to pontificate.. (?)

Tzortzis: No, of course, yes.

Chambers: Okay.

Krauss: Okay.

Chambers: Thanks very much, Hamza... please thank this man (?)

(audience clapping loudly)

Chambers: I don't mean to stop you in.. mid-flow there, but.. over to, uh..

Tzortzis: There must be some,

Chambers: Professor.

Tzortzis: There must be some agreement with Professor Krauss.

Chambers (?): (jokingly) Yeah.

(light audience murmur)

Krauss: Ok-okay, well, we can continue the discussion, because, it should be a discussion. Um.. my point is that, the question, I repeat again, is whats more sensible. And whats 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 bl-blaspheme all I want. Because ridicule, is an important part, of-of, of enquiry and discussion, sometimes ridicule some- ridiculing something, illuminates it. And I hear, about blasphemers, I hear- y-yeah-I hate to say it, and this may be, a complete, mis-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, in-tolerance when I see those principles applied, intolerance to blasphemers, intolerance to homosexuals.. intolerance in general. Now the other question, the other thing I wanna say is, this, Go- if we ask whats 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, m-much like the.. Judeo-Christian God, is a real creep. This is a God, worse than Saddam Hussein.. Instead of tor-torturing you just for your life, tortures you for- infinity! Forgive me the word, but eternity, let me use that word. Eternity, for not believing. For not believing, you're tortured for.. infinity- The tortures are actually described in the Quran and you know it as well as I do.. And, the point is, if you just 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, lets start with fifty times a day before Mohammad 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, recognise your existence, would you destroy them? No-I mean it just seems so petty. So why should we believe in a hateful, unmerciful, petty, sadomasochistic, homophobic, sexist, God? Its just irrational. Its not, sensible. Theres nothing, if- and there, and the point is, if- and-and, and I don't wanna, I don't wanna single out Islam here, and I know I'm offending some people.. but the same is true for the God Moses, okay.. If-the-If you read-If you really believe that the scriptures were- were literally true, the morals in that book are reprehensible! Its okay, when- you know- a-when an angel- and angels appear to do alot of things, including coming down an, an-an-and-i-and-and, uh, re-making revelations, to Mohammad, which Mohammad didn't write down- as far as I know the first example of the Quran was twenty years after, he died so there was alot of, talk.. And some of that talk got turned into perfect writing well after Mohammad was dead, but, those angels come down.. but in this case and the case of of course Lot (?) as you know, the angels came down, and uh.. and the-and they were men, they came in the form of men, which I don't think- um, 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 Lot do, of course he said don't rape them, take my daughters. Cause daughters are expensive.

(Audience murmurs)

Krauss: What kind of- what kind of moral lesson is that, that you wanna learn?

Audience member: (...) Get your facts right!

Unknown: Sshh..

Krauss: Okay, now I'm-I'm sorry thats m-my-my idea(?),-

Chambers: Plea-please..

Krauss: Thats from my religion, okay or my an, ancestors religion. I have none. Okay so those are the kind of moral lessons that I find, not sensible. And so lets-so other than that how about we take the Old Testament and not the Quran we talked about, uh um, im-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.. but-i-lets say time exists.. beyond our universe.. lets just allow for that, cause its easier to describe. And lets say our universe spont-a-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. Theres not- it need not have any reason why it was that time, relevant to some other time, whatever time it happens it will come into existence, and.. people could say, theres some significance to that, but it must happen some-where, at some time, and there need not be ANY significance, ANY purpose, ANY intelligence, for why it happened now, instead of then. Its guaranteed to happen at some point. Now if you say, during that creation, there are laws, one of which is quantum-cause of Quantum Mechanics, which can create a universe with zero total energy - by the way if im 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 and you say, okay, if that universe is created spontaneously it must be created at some time, so the universe MUST come into existence. In fact.. an infinite n-number of universes come-come into existence if time was infinite. Okay? Its simply 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 of that universe have to be exactly the properties of the universe we live in, including, the structure of the fluctuations of cosmic b-background, the collapse that produce all the galaxies and all the stars and the planets and you and me. Thats explanatory. Theres no explanation, at that level in any way, in your book. So, the explanation of the universe, that could come into existence from nothing, without any purpose, without any planning, without any reason, is explanatory. Now.. lest, I 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-is to misunderstand, science! There are lots of things we don't understand today, and there-and-thats the reason to go out and do science! Its just like Darwin said, you know, he said..

(audience murmurs)

Krauss: "Evolution species, I'm describing the evolution species, I'm not describing the origin of life, we'll never understand the origin of life, we'll no sooner understand the origin of life than we understand the origin of matter." Well of course, he didn't realise that there-a-one-one day (?) understand the origin of matter! Just as I expect, in your lifetime, in my lifetime, we'll understand the origin of life. We'll understand how chemistry, turns into biology.. By doing experiments, testing, and not forcing our predilection that its impossible!

Krauss: I had a debate recently with someone who said, its impossible, for non-life to turn into life, well thats a nice statement, its a nice belief, and its a belief you can have but, its a belief that could be wrong, and thats the great thing about science, which you can call atheism if you wish, is you're willing to change your beliefs! You're not assuming the answers before you ask the question, you're not assuming you know whats divinely right, just as 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 and the Quran. And so, you- to presume, that you, know Divine Truth before you've asked the Universe.. is not sensible. And I don't think I'll take any more time.

Chambers: Okay.

(Audience clapping)

Chambers: Thank you, Professor Krauss, uh.. Now over-back over to Hamza, three minutes it will be, thereabouts..

Tzortzis: Thank you Professor, thank you very much for your presentation.. Now... I really want you to.. try and address.. some of my arguments, you produced something about the Quran, but if you had tended to my argument, the Quran says bring a chapter like it not two verses from different chapters.. So, again it was a straw-man, or the articulation of what the Quranic miracle was. And I could spend more time maybe during the Q & A to explain what that is but I specifically said bring one chapter like it.. your, computer models I like to see evidence of, by the way..

Krauss: But.. but who d-decides whats like it? I mean, who is- do you decide, or do I?

Tzortzis: Okay, is that a different to-

Krauss: Reading Shakespeare is more beautiful than the Quran.

Tzortzis: Me (?)(...). Thats fine.

Krauss: Okay.

Tzortzis: But, I-I-

Krauss: Or, James Joyce..

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: He doesn't use iambic..

Tzortzis: I understand.

Krauss: Pentameter.

Tzortzis: I understand, sir.

Krauss: Okay.

Tzortzis: But what you have to understand, sir, is this.. is that I repeated maybe more than once its not based on aesthetic reception, your opinions or beauty-

Krauss: Whose, whose, who determined it?

Tzortzis: Well, its the reality, empirical reality-

Krauss: No, wh-who,

Tzortzis: I-I'm gonna explain-

Krauss: Whats empirical reality?

Tzortzis: L-Let me explain what the argument is, again, because, from your answer, you misunderstood it, you think it was mutating (?)-

Krauss: You quote people, who said it couldn't have been created, but those are just, literary scholars, what-I mean, what if I say, "Yeah, it could be created."

Tzortzis: Yeah. Let me just explain that, -

Krauss: Okay.

Tzortzis: Because your first presupposition was based on a falsehood, wasn't it, yeah. If you thought it was aesthetic reception. Its based upon the structural features of the Arabic language, and because I only have 2 minutes, I'll continue that in the Q & A.

Krauss: Okay.

Tzortzis: Okay. So. Also you're saying about, that.. the- the universe began, and we could show that maybe empirically or deductively, ah-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 c-conventions of the mathematical realm of discouse but, in discrete physical parts as you've-you've admitted in your book that can't happen, so we have a deductive argument that the universe began which means it wasn't once there. Ontologically, if there wasn't a cause of that you wouldn't have the universe in the first place. The second point, I'd like to make..

Krauss: No, theres a pho- see the photon thats lighting you up, from that thing?

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: It didn't exist, oh-before it was invented by the electron.

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: Okay? It didn't exist.

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: It wasn't there.

Tzortzis: Y-and you're saying there's no cause?

Krauss: It-there-it wasn't-you know-

(audience laughs and claps)

Krauss: (...) What I'm saying is, what I'm saying is.. there could be physical causes for physical effects,

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: Okay, but they don't have to be-but God, doesn't have to pull the-the photon, just cause the, the photon pulls from nothing, doesn't require something supernatural.

Tzortzis: I agree. But.. (...)-

Krauss: Okay. So the universe suddenly-

Tzortzis: Why would it come into existence? (?)

Krauss: Come into an existence where it wasn't before. It doesn't require something supernatural.

Tzortzis: I already-I already gave you a defeator to the argument that you assume that when things begin to exist, they may not require any causes, and that defeator was-

Krauss: Not a purpose, I didn't say cause-I-look I just said, if a universe CAN come into existence.. by physical causes..

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: Where theres no universe to begin with, it will happen at some time and your point was,..-

Tzortzis: I agree.

Krauss: It happened, and, and therefore, it, there's a reason-

Tzortzis: No, nonono.

Krauss: Why it happened, because it happened when it happened it was-if it didn't happen then, it would've happened some other time,-

Tzortzis: You-

Krauss: And we would've had this conversation some other time.

Tzortzis: Lets calm down. You're putting words in my mouth, okay.

Krauss: Okay.

Tzortzis: What I'm saying-

Krauss: What did you say, then?-

Tzortzis: I'm not saying-

Krauss: Maybe, maybe.. (?)

Tzortzis: Things like, eh-im not talking about, teleolo-teleology, I'm not talking about there is-

Krauss: Don't use..

Tzortzis: A purpose behind..-

Krauss: Don't use definition. Did you not say, our universe came into existence for a cause and there had to be a reason for it.

Tzortzis: No, I didn't say reason. I-well-uh-

Krauss: There had to be a purpose?

Tzortzis: No I didn't say that, I said there is a quibble- (?)

Krauss: Oh I thought you said there was an intelligence, you gave a whole long argument-

Tzortzis: Oh, thats after using conceptual analysis that you agree that there is a.. uncreated creator or a "cause" that was "uncaused". Now..

Krauss: Wha-hold on, but-

Tzortzis: Yep.

Krauss: What-it-forget, a-all that, I just talked about our universe..

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: You-you- are you agreeing with me, that our universe doesn't have to have a-a-ah any purpose or reason to create it?

Tzortzis: No, of course n-not. Of course I agree with you. Well-but thats not my argument, my argument is.. deductively, was the universe once, absent?

Krauss: Yes!

Tzortzis: Yes. If thats the case, then ontologically, which means, th-the nature or source of reality, is that it couldn't have come into being without a cause.

Krauss: Well, well, okay. First of all.. The sim-I wish, I hope its that way, because that means you'd understand.

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: Okay. It-Its possible that its not that way. Okay, so if it has, and we-we can this off my time, you know I don't care,

(audience chuckle)

Krauss: Um, the-the, the.. th-the point is, maybe, maybe time e-exists outside of our universe, maybe it does. Lets just pretend it does, and that our unvierse came into our existence and theres a physical cause for that. Thats fine, I'm-im fine with that, im fine with our universe coming into existence with a physical cause just like that photon being created. But, as I pointed out to you, its equally possible that these notions that we have in our brains, because we're humans living in a classical level, that time.. that someth-that time exists, and is a continuous flow, may break down. And if they break down, and T equals zero, then.. any sense of the word cause, becomes, non-sensical-

Tzortzis: That does. (?)

Krauss: And os (?), the word, cause, i-i-is a red herring, in your terms. Its 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 there may - this notion that every, every cause, e-every effect has a cause, may be irrelevant, if theres no time. Now, I don't know if thats the case but I'm willing-

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: So I'm willing to ask the question and I'm willing to do studies to see if its reasonable-

Tzortzis: Yes.

Krauss: I'm not willing to presume the answer before I ask the question.

