Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → William Lane Tzortzis

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 08:08 PM
Gaza assault
Yesterday at 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 19, 2024, 06:36 AM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 04, 2024, 03:51 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: William Lane Tzortzis

 (Read 9302 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     OP - March 18, 2013, 11:08 PM
    Everybody already knows that Tzortzis does little else but steal from William Lane Craig.
    I have found a cast iron example:

    I listened to Hamza's bullshit in the recent debate, and his initial piece of bullshit is essentially a summary of his essay 'The Quranic arguments for God's existence'
     In the debate, and in this essay he quotes the philosopher P.J Zwart.
    The quote in question: “If there is anything we find inconceivable it is that something could arise from nothing.”

    To nobody's surprise, William Lane Craig also makes use of the same quote. In his essay "Philosophical and Scientific Pointers to Creatio ex Nihilo", Craig references this quote from p.240 of Zwart's book 'Time'. But Hamza Tzortis  apparently finds this same quotation on pages 117 - 119 in another of Zwart's books.

    A one line quotation that spans three pages? Are you sure Hamza?
    Hamza's reference is wrong. But where did he get it from? Well the answer is rather simple:
    In WLC's essay, Craig quotes directly from Zwart, but he also references an idea from Zwart. An idea that is referenced on pages 117 - 119 in the same book that Hamza claims to have found the quotation.

    WLC references Zwart twice, and Tzortzis copied and pasted the wrong reference



  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #1 - March 18, 2013, 11:34 PM
    There's a reason why kalam arguments weren't adopted by the islamic milieu as a whole. They're intellectually bankrupt. I mean, so is the design argument, but it's an appeal to emotion which is a logical fallacy within itself but let's not go there. Mr. Tzortzis would be best advised to read the incoherence of the philosophers. Heterodoxy would culminate in nihilism. the islamic philosophers knew this, hence, ibn-rushd (I think) declaring that intellectual property should be restricted to an elite as it is subversive.

    Oh whatever, if you predicate your arguments on christian theology you're doomed to failure. Scrap that, if you predicate your arguments on abrahamism and seek purpose you're doomed to failure. Let these chums propagate their falsehood; if you're too emotionally attached to an identity that you can't realise it's contradictions then I will struggle to understand you, TBH.
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #2 - March 19, 2013, 02:34 AM
    In the debate, Hamza says the following

    Quote
    The traditional western philosophical definition of a miracle as summaried by David Hume in his 'an enquiry concerning human understanding', he says it’s a "transgression of natural law".  We don’t agree with that definition. Because what are natural laws? Natural laws are just inductive generalisations of patterns we perceive in the universe. If something changes from the pattern or is different. They maybe its just part of the pattern. Its just based on induction.

    What the profound Islamic theologians and thinkers have done, is they’ve redefined what a miracle is based on the quranic discourse. And they have said that a miracle is “an event that lies outside the productive capacity of nature”. Which means, when you go to the nature of the event, you exhaust all possible naturalistic explanations, and also there is no naturalistic causal link between the event, and the nature of the event. This is a far more coherent definition.


    Who are these profound Islamic theologians and thinkers who have defined 'miracle' in this manner? Hamza does not mention any names. this is suspicious for a man who names drops as enthusiastically as Tzortzis. Perhaps his website may clarify the issue:

    Quote
    According to philosophers such as William Lane Craig a miracle is defined as “events which lie outside the productive capacity of nature”.

    http://hamzatzortzis.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/questions-is-the-linguistic-literary-miracle-of-the-quran-subjective/

    So according to Hamza, William Craig is a profound Islamic theologian/thinker.
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #3 - March 19, 2013, 03:23 AM
    How isn't the existence of allah or miracles inductive?

    Anyway... "What the profound Islamic theologians and thinkers have done, is they’ve redefined what a miracle is based on the quranic discourse. And they have said that a miracle is “an event that lies outside the productive capacity of nature”. Which means, when you go to the nature of the event, you exhaust all possible naturalistic explanations, and also there is no naturalistic causal link."

    This is just pretentious philosophical bullshit designed to bludgeon your opponent into submission. Vindicates Hume's point to begin with. From my reading of islamic theology no such theologian has given such a definition. Miracles weren't exactly issues of great portence during the epoch of the arab golden age...
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #4 - March 19, 2013, 10:15 AM
    I can't believe what a charlatan this Hamza-dude is. One thing is that he actually pulls of his scams in the consciousness of his Muslim audience, but how does he feel about himself in private when he considers that all his work is plagiarism and that he cannot possess an original thought if his whole life depended on it?

    He must be a sad person in private OR an affectionless psychopath, who can't seem to be bothered that his whole career is essentially one big lie.
    Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #5 - March 19, 2013, 11:05 AM
    Quote from: Minimow on March 19, 2013, 10:15 AM
    He must be a sad person in private OR an affectionless psychopath, who can't seem to be bothered that his whole career is essentially one big lie.

    Very good.

    I'm wavering between one and the other.
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #6 - March 19, 2013, 11:10 AM
    Hamza is  'senior researcher' at iERA, Can you imagine the tosh that a junior researcher would produce?


    Dr_sloth GCSE; Cycling proficient; 10m Swimming badge
    Senior Researcher
    CEMB.
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #7 - March 19, 2013, 12:43 PM
    incorrect, i know he had used work of other christian apologists ie

    platingas - theodicy
    cs lewis - test the message
    dembski - intellient design

    we should compile a list of christian apologists whose work he has used

  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #8 - March 19, 2013, 12:46 PM
    With WLC though it isn't simply a case of using his work. In the example above, it is a case of copying and pasting, the wrong citation, and then citing WLC's definition or miracle as that of some 'profound Islamic theologian'.
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #9 - March 19, 2013, 09:14 PM
    I love the title of this thread. Carry on. Smiley
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #10 - March 19, 2013, 10:27 PM
    He's a hack. The errors he makes while plagiarising and changing a few words here and there just show that he doesn't understand what he's plagiarising. It's just fluff and filler to make a propaganda article sound intellectual.

    BTW, wasn't there another thread with a blog post from someone else who caught him red handed?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #11 - March 19, 2013, 10:36 PM
    This one: http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/interfaith-dialogue-hamza-tzortzis-and.html

    Snippet:

    Quote
    For copyright reasons I won't reproduce both articles in their entirety. Let's start after Hamza's preliminary note:

    Hamza Tzortzis: "The existence of a life permitting universe is due to conditions that must have been fined-tuned to a degree that is literally incalculable. Take the following examples:"

    William Lane Craig: "The existence of intelligent life depends upon a conspiracy of initial conditions which must be fine-tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable."

    Hamza Tzortzis: "The Strength of Gravity & the Atomic Weak Force: Physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life permitting universe."

    William Lane Craig: "For example, the physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe."

    Hamza Tzortzis: "Big Bang’s Low Entropy Condition: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010. Penrose comments, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010.”"

    William Lane Craig: "Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010^(123).  Penrose comments, "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010^(123).""

    It's worth noting the difference in figures - William Lane Craig quotes Penrose correctly, Hamza accidentally drops ^123, leaving Penrose describing the relatively paltry figure of ten billion as unknown in discussions of physics.


    What a total hack. He should be embarrassed.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #12 - March 20, 2013, 12:24 PM
    Quote from: Minimow on March 19, 2013, 10:15 AM
    I can't believe what a charlatan this Hamza-dude is. One thing is that he actually pulls of his scams in the consciousness of his Muslim audience, but how does he feel about himself in private when he considers that all his work is plagiarism and that he cannot possess an original thought if his whole life depended on it?

    He must be a sad person in private OR an affectionless psychopath, who can't seem to be bothered that his whole career is essentially one big lie.


    Really?Huh?? After the debate with prof. Hoodbhoy I got 100% convinced that this dude is a complete piece of shit.
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #13 - May 28, 2014, 02:42 PM
    Next book I'ma read

  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #14 - May 28, 2014, 03:54 PM
    There was a link submitted to reddit which dealt with, along with other topics, this very issue of hamza plagiarizing:

    http://asharisassemble.com/2014/04/18/10-problems-with-dawahmen/
    "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life." ― Frank Zappa
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #15 - May 28, 2014, 04:14 PM
    A funny example of HLC was where he copied WLC but actually didn't understand enough about what Bill was talking about, so he made a fundamental error.

    WLC:  "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 10^[10^(123)]."

    HLC : "According to Penrose the volume of the phase space would be 1/10 to the power of X which is 10^(123)".


    Idiot.


    http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/interfaith-dialogue-hamza-tzortzis-and.html


    He's like that stupid kid in class who copies your test wrong.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #16 - May 28, 2014, 04:19 PM
    video I made a while ago on the topic
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE0RtCSyJPQ

  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #17 - May 28, 2014, 04:20 PM
    I saw that video ages ago haha, the description killed me.
    Good job.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • William Lane Tzortzis
     Reply #18 - June 14, 2014, 08:22 AM
    Outstanding work dr sloth. Simran approves:

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »