Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-08-2013, 08:18 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(04-08-2013 08:00 AM)Mike Wrote:  
(04-08-2013 07:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, not right. It may or may not be. I find it more plausible that it is finite but unbounded.

Finite but yet unbounded like this Earth? In my opinion this is still finite and limited.

No, not like this earth. Earth is bounded.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2013, 08:19 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2013 08:40 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(04-08-2013 12:20 AM)Mike Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 10:18 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Your response makes it sound like you don't know where babies come from.

When something changes, we can say that the new position of that something has begun and when it changes again, that it ends and something new begins again.

As a car is built on the assembly line in a car factory you can say that the workers begin to build a car. That would seem to be it's beginning. but the car itself isn't yet made. You could even go back further and say that the designers are beginning to draw out the design and specifications of the car.

Do you want to know when the water begins to boil or when the water began to pour into the pan or when the water pipes were installed in the house or when the well was dug that taped into the ground water ?

There are all kinds of beginnings and all kinds of endings.

And this is mine.

I'm done answering silly questions tonight.

Of course I know where babies come from, but asking this question doesn't absolutely mean that I don't know where babies come from obviously. But thanks for your answer btw. I'm not going to ask you "silly" questions anymore. Rolleyes

But do you believe in Big Bang theory? According to this theory, everything, including space and time itself, or even void begin when the Big Bang start. Some said before the Big Bang occurred, no space, time and anything else exist. I don't know if even "absolute nothingness" can be assert before the Big Bang occurred. My personal opinion is there are neither something nor nothing before the Big Bang, although I tend to think that there must be some kind of "something" that we can't understand or maybe it's unknowable. I also tend to think that if we say before Big Bang started nothing existed or something existed, I think it's wrong because there is no even "before" prior the Big Bang because time itself started at the very first instant of the Big Bang. But according to the religious community, they will said "it is God that created the event". What's your opinion?

"Created" (creation) is an action. Actions have a beginning, a mid-point, and an end point. That (those) requires time. To say a deity "created something" *before" space-time, (BTW you do know that Einstein's Relativity showed that in this universe space and time are not separate I hope), is meaningless. To posit that a timeless ("eternal") being "does" anything, is meaningless, (without invoking Special Pleading). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
It also means the action becomes a refuting (contradictory) element for a "timeless" being. The action (creation) becomes a measuring point, at which the "eternal" ceases as there instantly becomes a "before" and and "after" the creative act. That "ain't no" *eternal", or "timeless" being.
Ask your Ayatollah Sheik-Boo-Boo to define "existence". Tell him to do so using NO word or concept that uses a(ny) "temporal" (time dependent) concept. He can't.
He's up a philosophical shit creek without a paddle.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2013, 10:31 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(04-08-2013 08:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-08-2013 08:00 AM)Mike Wrote:  Finite but yet unbounded like this Earth? In my opinion this is still finite and limited.

No, not like this earth. Earth is bounded.

I know, but if I'm not misunderstand you, you're asserting that the Universe have closed topology, thus not infinite.
Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2013, 10:39 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(04-08-2013 08:19 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-08-2013 12:20 AM)Mike Wrote:  Of course I know where babies come from, but asking this question doesn't absolutely mean that I don't know where babies come from obviously. But thanks for your answer btw. I'm not going to ask you "silly" questions anymore. Rolleyes

But do you believe in Big Bang theory? According to this theory, everything, including space and time itself, or even void begin when the Big Bang start. Some said before the Big Bang occurred, no space, time and anything else exist. I don't know if even "absolute nothingness" can be assert before the Big Bang occurred. My personal opinion is there are neither something nor nothing before the Big Bang, although I tend to think that there must be some kind of "something" that we can't understand or maybe it's unknowable. I also tend to think that if we say before Big Bang started nothing existed or something existed, I think it's wrong because there is no even "before" prior the Big Bang because time itself started at the very first instant of the Big Bang. But according to the religious community, they will said "it is God that created the event". What's your opinion?

"Created" (creation) is an action. Actions have a beginning, a mid-point, and an end point. That (those) requires time. To say a deity "created something" *before" space-time, (BTW you do know that Einstein's Relativity showed that in this universe space and time are not separate I hope), is meaningless. To posit that a timeless ("eternal") being "does" anything, is meaningless, (without invoking Special Pleading). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
It also means the action becomes a refuting (contradictory) element for a "timeless" being. The action (creation) becomes a measuring point, at which the "eternal" ceases as there instantly becomes a "before" and and "after" the creative act. That "ain't no" *eternal", or "timeless" being.
Ask your Ayatollah Sheik-Boo-Boo to define "existence". Tell him to do so using NO word or concept that uses a(ny) "temporal" (time dependent) concept. He can't.
He's up a philosophical shit creek without a paddle.

Ayatollah Sheik-Boo-Boo Laughat LOL. But the term Ayatollah is usually used among the Shia Muslims, it's not used among the mainstream Sunni Muslims, such as the author of the site, Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji a.k.a Ayatollah Sheik-Boo-Boo Big Grin

Aha, if you've already read some of his articles there, he said Allah's actions are without beginning and we can't comprehend it because it's not like ours, or creation. But if I'm going to tell him to define "existence" without using any word or concept that uses any "temporal" concept, I think he can't just like what you've said.
Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2013, 11:09 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
An action with no beginning is called doing nothing.
An action that cannot be comprehended is called insanity.

The insanity of nothing doing nothing is what some would call a god.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
04-08-2013, 11:49 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(04-08-2013 10:31 AM)Mike Wrote:  
(04-08-2013 08:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, not like this earth. Earth is bounded.

I know, but if I'm not misunderstand you, you're asserting that the Universe have closed topology, thus not infinite.

Well, I'm not actually asserting anything. All of these ideas are hypotheses, some with more and some with less support from established physics.

But then, established physics is provisional.

We search for better explanations. Knowledge arises from conjecture followed by evidence; most of this stuff is conjecture awaiting evidence.

I don't believe any of it, although I find some ideas more believable than others.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-08-2013, 12:51 PM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2013 03:07 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(04-08-2013 10:39 AM)Mike Wrote:  Allah's actions are without beginning and we can't comprehend it because it's not like ours, or creation.

That's the DEFINITION of Special Pleading.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-08-2013, 05:20 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(02-08-2013 01:06 PM)Mike Wrote:  What's your opinion about this article? The Indivisible Element

He said atom can't be divided infinitely, so indivisible element is indeed exist. Share your opinions.
I see this as another unfounded claim. Why MUST it be that we reach a point of division that an element can no longer be divided another time?

Look at this way, how do you divide something the size of an atom? It seems like an impossible task. But now what if you were the same size as that atom? Then it would seem easy, right?

It's a matter of perspective in my opinion. When an element would seem so small that it could not longer be divided, maybe in reality it would only seem that way because the ability to actually divide it (or observe it being divided or conceptualize it being divided) is merely out of OUR reach or comprehension.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 02:43 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(04-08-2013 08:19 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ask your Ayatollah Sheik-Boo-Boo to define "existence". Tell him to do so using NO word or concept that uses a(ny) "temporal" (time dependent) concept. He can't.
He's up a philosophical shit creek without a paddle.

LOL look at this conversation :

Mohd Ibn says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Assalamualaikum Sheikh,

Can you define “existence” without using any word or concept that uses any temporal (time dependent) concept? Jazakallah.


Then Sheikh Abu Adam replied :

Shaykh Abu Adam says:
August 5, 2013 at 8:12 pm
I don’t think you should attempt or even need to define “existence”. If every word in the dictionary needed a definition we would end up with circular reasoning. Hence, there are words that we have an understanding of without needing a definition. That is why in the dictionary you’ll find something like “not non-existent”.


It's look like you're right.
Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 03:19 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(05-08-2013 02:43 PM)Mike Wrote:  Mohd Ibn says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Assalamualaikum Sheikh,

Can you define “existence” without using any word or concept that uses any temporal (time dependent) concept? Jazakallah.


Then Sheikh Abu Adam replied :

Shaykh Abu Adam says:
August 5, 2013 at 8:12 pm
I don’t think you should attempt or even need to define “existence”. If every word in the dictionary needed a definition we would end up with circular reasoning. Hence, there are words that we have an understanding of without needing a definition. That is why in the dictionary you’ll find something like “not non-existent”.


It's look like you're right.
Wow, looks like that guy combined special pleading with circular logic in one statement.

I now declare all gods to be schlurfel.

What is schlurfel you ask? It's a concept we all understand but don't need a definition for....

Yeah, let's see how well that works. Dodgy

[Image: 21omssh.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: